Bachelor  Thesis  The  Influence  of  Organizational  Culture  on  Job  Stress  June  21,  2010    

Supervisor:  Dr.  Josje  Dikkers  Author:  Thomas  Trip  E-­mail:  t.f.trip@student.vu.nl    Faculty  of  Economics  and  Business  Administration  Vrije  Universiteit,  Amsterdam  International  Business  Administration  bachelor  

Abstract This thesis has sought to investigate the influence of organizational culture on job stress, and the way in which personality influences this relationship. In order to answer this question, three models of organizational culture have been presented: The Competing Values Framework of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983), Trompenaars and Woolliams’ (2003) Four Culture Types and six dimensions of organizational culture by Hofstede (2001). Furthermore, models of job stress have been discussed: The Job Demands-Resources Model of Demerouti and Bakker (2006), the DISC model (de Jonge et al., 2008) and War’s vitamin model (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998). This part has shown when there is a mismatch between job demands, job resources and capabilities of the employee; it is likely for job stress to be experienced. Additionally, the Big Five Personality Traits (Barrick & Mount, 1991) have been presented in order to distinguish between personalities. By combining the organizational culture models, a new model has been developed: The Four Culture Typology. This model consists of four organizational cultures: target culture, functional culture, innovation culture and pack culture. It can be concluded the different organizational cultures have different job demands and different job resources for their employees. Job stress is most likely to be experienced in the target culture, followed by the functional culture and, later, the pack culture and the innovation culture. However, personality-culture fit results in less negative experience of the culture’s job demands, while job resources are utilized in the best manner. As a result, this fit results in a decreased likelihood of job stress to be experienced. Key words: Organizational Culture, Job Stress, Personality, Competing Values Framework, Four Culture Types, Job Demands-Resources Model, DISC model, Big Five Personality Traits, Four Culture Typology  

 ii  

Table of Contents

I.   INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1  1.1 Research Question .................................................................................................. 2  1.2 Sub Questions ......................................................................................................... 2  1.3 Thesis Structure ...................................................................................................... 3  

II.   ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE .......................................................................... 4  2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4  2.2 Identifying and Defining Organizational Culture .................................................. 4  2.2 Classifying Organizational Culture ........................................................................ 5  

2.2.1 The Competing Values Framework .........................................................................6  2.2.2 Four Culture Types ..................................................................................................7  2.2.3 Six Dimensions to Characterize Organizational Culture .........................................9  

2.3   Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 10  

III.   JOB STRESS................................................................................................. 11  3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 11  3.2 Defining Job Stress ............................................................................................... 11  3.3 The Causes of Job Stress....................................................................................... 12  

3.3.1 Organizational Stress-related Hazards ...................................................................12  3.3.2 Towards Modeling job Stress ................................................................................13  3.3.3 The Job-demands Resources Model ......................................................................14  3.3.4 The Demand-induced Strain Compensation Model ...............................................16  3.3.5 The Vitamin Model................................................................................................17  

3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 18  

IV.   PERSONALITY ............................................................................................. 19  4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 19  4.2 Defining Personality.............................................................................................. 19  4.3 The Big Five Personality Traits ............................................................................ 20  4.4 Person-job Fit ....................................................................................................... 21  4.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 23  

V.   ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 24  5.1 The Macro Level ................................................................................................... 24  

5.1.1 Organizational Culture Models: Similarities (and Differences).............................24  5.1.2 Towards a New Model of Organizational Culture .................................................27  

5.2 The Meso Level ..................................................................................................... 31  5.2.1 Job Stress: The Demands and Resources of the Organizational Cultures ..............31  5.2.2 Target Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources ..................................................32  5.2.3 Functional Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources ...........................................33  5.2.4 Innovation Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources ...........................................34  5.2.5 Pack Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources ....................................................35  5.2.6 Job Stress and Organizational Culture ...................................................................35  

5.3   The Micro Level................................................................................................. 36  5.3.1 The Connection of the Big Five with Organizational Culture ...............................36  5.3.2 Personality and Job Stress......................................................................................39  

VI.   CONCLUSION............................................................................................... 41  6.1 Limitations and Future Research ..............................................................................44  6.2 Theoretical Implications ...........................................................................................45  6.3 Practical Implications ...............................................................................................45  

VII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 47  

I. INTRODUCTION In today’s highly competitive and globalized world that is characterized by organizational

downsizing and restructuring, job stress has become a topic of growing concern. The term

stress is used regularly to describe a wide variety of “aches and pains”, which are the result of

a hectic pace of life (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997). In the United States, one third of all

employees are reporting high levels of job stress (Sauter, 2007), while 75% of all employees

state there is more on-the-job stress than a generation ago (AIS, 2004). As a result, employees

that perceive job stress experience a wide variety of health problems, which results in

increased health expenditures, absenteeism and lower performance (Bakker & Demerouti,

2006). Even in organizations that focus heavily on employee performance, the productivity-

killing effect of stress has been recognized. General Electric, for example, now invites

comedians into the company to lighten up the working environment and does not use the

companies’ famous term for low performers, “bottom 10s”, anymore (BusinessWeek, 2007).

Although job stress is increasingly being recognized within organizations, the question

remains what job stress exactly is and what the causes of this phenomenon are.

According to Daft (2009), the key elements of an organization are that it is made up of people

and the relationships between those people. As a result, an organization exists when these

people interact in order to perform functions that help in the attainment of goals. These

interactions, functions and goals can vary widely among organizations. For example, there is

an office building in Mountain View, California, where dogs, lava lamps, large inflatable

balls, massage chairs, slides and swimming pools coexist. Here, multinational cloud

computing and search engine company Google has based its headquarters, the Googleplex

(Google, 2010). This campus, accompanied with Google’s unofficial motto, “Don’t Be Evil”,

tries to stimulate it’s employees’ commitment to innovation and creativity, while sharing the

belief that customers should not be exploited in order to make profit (Lenssen, 2007).

On the other hand, when most people hear “Enron”, they will think about corruption on a

large scale – “a company where a handful of highly paid executives were able to pocket

millions of dollars while carelessly eroding the life-savings of thousands of unwitting

employees (Sims & Brinkman, 2003, p. 243)”. In 2001, Enron’s scandal became famous, as it

was revealed that financial statements were purposely altered by means of accounting fraud.

According to Sims and Brinkman (2003), Enron’s former CEO, Jeff Skilling, created a

culture that would push the limits with as motto: “Do it right, do it now and do it better”. In a

Harvard case study, employees state, “You were expected to perform to a standard that was

continually being raised” and “the only thing that mattered was adding value” (Sims &

Brinkman, 2003, p. 244).

These examples show how organizational culture can differ among companies. But how does

the culture of an organization influence the stress that its employees encounter? During the

 2  

past decades, researchers have developed several frameworks to clarify organizational

culture. In that same time period, the causes, effects and prevention of job stress have been

studied extensively as well. This literature study aims to investigate the influence of

organizational culture on job stress. However, as job stress is a concept that deals with

individuals, the characteristics of the individual might moderate the influence of

organizational culture on job stress. Therefore, literature concerning personality will be

discussed as well in order to find out how this moderator influences the aforementioned

relationship. As a result, the following research question has been formulated.

1.1 Research Question • What is the influence of organizational culture on job stress and how does personality

influence this relationship?

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

In order to answer the research question, the following sub questions have been developed,

which will be discussed in the subsequent chapters.

1.2 Sub Questions • What is organizational culture?

• Which types of organizational cultures can be distinguished?

• What is job stress?

• What are the causes of job stress?

• How can personality be defined?

3  

 

1.3 Thesis Structure This bachelor thesis will have the following structure. Chapter one has introduced both

organizational culture and job stress, accompanied with the aim of this thesis. Chapter two

will discuss organizational culture. This chapter tries to identify and define organizational

culture and will present typologies classifying organizational culture. Chapter three will

present literature regarding job stress. Job stress will be defined and stress-related hazards

will be presented. This will lead to models of job stress, which include the job demand-

resources model, the demand-induced strain compensation model and the vitamin model.

Additionally, chapter four will elaborate on personality in order to find out how personality

influences the relation between organizational culture and job stress. This will include

working towards a useful definition of personality, the Big Five Personality Traits and the

person-job fit model. All concepts will be analyzed and integrated in chapter five. This will

eventually lead to a new, combined model of organizational culture (the macro level): The

Four Culture Typology. On the meso level, job demands and job resources will be connected

to the four organizational cultures in order to show in which cases it is likely for job stress to

emerge. Furthermore, the Big Five Personality Traits will be connected to the organizational

cultures in order to find out what the influence of personality is on the emergence of job

stress. The conclusion chapter will summarize this thesis’ findings, provide limitations and

suggestions for future research, and will end with both theoretical and practical implications.

The structure of this thesis has been depicted in figure 2, which can be found below.

Figure 2: Thesis Structure

 

 4  

II. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE 2.1 Introduction Culture is a concept that is being used in a wide variety of occasions. The general perception

is that it refers to rituals and customs that societies have developed over time (Schein, 2004).

Since the last decades, culture is being used to describe the practices and climate in an

organization that has been developed around the handling of employees. The individual

continuously learns about culture by experiences in the family, groups, school, communities

and occupation. As a result, culture evolves as new groups are joined, which results in new

cultures for the individual. Schein argues a social unit, which also includes an organization,

with some shared history will result in the evolvement of a culture. However, the strength of

that culture depends on how long it has existed, how stable its membership is and how

emotionally intense the shared historical experiences have been. Often, members of

organizations agree that organizational culture exists and that it is influencing the way they

work, but definitions of members show to be different (Schein, 2004). This chapter will

discuss what organizational culture is, discusses its levels of analysis and presents three

typologies that have tried to identify types of organizational culture.

2.2 Identifying and Defining Organizational Culture Based on the line of reasoning that has been portrayed above, Schein (2004) defines

organizational culture as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group

as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well

enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way

to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein, 2004, p. 17)”. As a result,

elements of the culture will be transferred to new generations of members of the organization.

Hofstede (2001) describes this as the collective programming of the mind. It is what

distinguishes one member of an organization from another. Studying what is being taught to

new members of an organization results in learning what the surface aspects of the

organizational culture are, but does not reveal what lies beyond this surface. Therefore,

Schein (2004) shows that culture can be analyzed at several degrees to which a certain

cultural phenomenon can be visualized by the observer. Three levels of culture exist, which

are being called artifacts, espoused beliefs and values and basic underlying assumptions.

The artifact level includes all phenomena that can be seen, heard and felt when an unfamiliar

organizational culture is encountered. Such visible products are, for example, language,

clothing, manners of address and observable rituals and ceremonies. The point with this level

of culture, according to Schein (2004), is that artifacts are easy to observe, but difficult to

interpret and understand. What is seen and felt can be described, but it is not possible to

reconstruct what a specific artifact means for the organization by analyzing artifacts alone. As

5  

 

a result, Schein suggests analyzing the espoused beliefs and values, which provides the

operating principles the members of the organization use to lead their behavior.

When an organization is facing a problem, the solutions being proposed by an individual to

deal with this problem ultimately reflect assumptions of that individual about what will work

and what will not work. In other words, it reflects the individual’s original beliefs and values.

If the members of the organization agree to act upon this solution, the solution works and the

members share the success of the solution, a gradual transformation can take place; the

solution turns into a shared value or belief. Shared values and beliefs at the conscious level

can be seen in the organization’s mission statement and goals, which are supported by

strategies, rules and codes of conduct. As a result, part of the behavior at the artifacts level

can be predicted by the beliefs and values at the conscious level. However, areas of behavior

are still unexplained. In order to deepen this understanding, the level of basic underlying

assumptions should be examined.

The difference between basic assumptions and shared beliefs and values is that the latter still

leaves room for alternatives. There is a preferred solution, but the culture still displays the

alternatives that could be chosen from time to time. Basic assumptions, on the other hand, do

not allow any variation at all. When there is a strongly held basic assumption among members

of the organization, other behavior is perceived as inconceivable. Schein states, basic

assumptions “tell group members how to perceive, think about, and feel about things (Schein,

2004, p.31)”. The result of the existence of basic assumptions in organizations is that

members act upon and comply to them in order to make the world around them more stable

and predictable. Changing basic assumptions in an organization would result in

destabilization and anxiety. This forms the basis of culture as being perceived in numerous

occasions. Organizational culture can be seen as a set of basic assumptions telling what

deserves attention, what something means, how the emotional reaction should be and what

actions should be taken in different situations. Schein argues, once an organization has a set

of basic assumptions that are being shared among its members, maximal comfort will exist

among people sharing the same assumptions. But members of different organizations may

perceive large discomfort, as different assumptions can cause misinterpretation and

misperception of the actions of the other. As a result, understanding the basic assumptions of

a culture will result in better understanding of the articulated values and the artifacts of a

culture and improved ability to deal with these levels (Schein, 2004).

2.2 Classifying Organizational Culture During the last decades, many researchers have tried to make a distinction between different

types of organizational culture. This has resulted in the development of typologies, of which

many have been criticized by other researchers. Deal and Kennedy (1982), for example, made

 6  

four classifications of organizational culture by focusing on feedback and risk. However, due

to a lack of insight into the methodology, this approach was criticized by Gorden (1984) in

the Academy of Management Review.

2.2.1 The Competing Values Framework A widely accepted typology showing the differences in organizational culture is the famous

competing values framework by Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983). Their research showed that

organizational researchers share a theoretical framework that can be identified in three value

dimensions: organizational focus, organizational structure and organizational means and

ends (Quin & Rohrbaugh, 1983). These dimensions can be subdivided in three axes. The

organizational focus axis ranges from an internal emphasis on the well-being and

development of the employees to an external emphasis on the well-being and development of

the organization itself. The organizational structure axis ranges from emphasis on structure to

emphasis on flexibility. The axis, organizational means and ends, has a range from emphasis

on important processes to an emphasis on final outcomes. The matrix, resulting from the

integration of the abovementioned axes, has been displayed below.

Figure 3: Competing Values Framework (adapted from Burton and Obel, 2004)

Burton and Obel (2004) show that the competing values framework identifies four different

organizational cultures: group culture, developmental culture, internal process culture and

rational goal culture.

The group culture can be described as a culture in which its members share much of

themselves, which is perceived as a friendly place to work. Burton and Obel characterize this

by arguing that a group culture has both a low level of conflict and a high level of trust.

Organizations with a group culture emphasize on employee cohesion and attach high

importance to morale. This organizational culture has less emphasis on receiving individual

rewards. Teamwork, consensus and participation are important for this culture’s main focus;

7  

 

concern for people and sensitivity to the customer. However, this type of organizational

culture is characterized by high resistance to change.

The developmental culture is being characterized as a creative, entrepreneurial and dynamic

place to work in. Also here, there is a low level of conflict and trust is high. Additionally,

there is a high morale among employees. The employees in this organizational culture are

considered to be risk-takers and innovators. Therefore, resistance to change is low, as the

culture focuses on innovation, growth and the acquisition of new resources.

The internal process culture can be described as a structured and formalized place to work.

What the employees are required to do is based on the organizational procedures. These

organizations focus on predictability, stability and efficiency. Leaders in this culture are seen

as organizers and coordinators. This organizational culture can be characterized by high

resistance to change, a low level of trust and a low level of employee morale.

The rational goal culture can be found in organizations that are result-oriented. Leaders in this

culture are seen as tough, demanding competitors that focus on winning. In this culture, there

is a focus on competitive actions and achieving measurable goals and targets. Therefore, for

employees, the competitive character of the rational goal culture results in low loyalty to the

organization. As a result, trust is low and the conflict level is high. However, resistance to

change is low as well (Burton & Obel, 2004).

2.2.2 Four Culture Types Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) have based their typology of organizational culture on

organizational relationships. Three aspects have been distinguished, which are determined by

the culture in which they appear: the general relationships among employees, the hierarchical

relationships with superiors or subordinates and the views and goals of the employees.

Organizational culture is derived from two dimensions, which are related to the three aspects

of organizational relationships. The first dimension, task or person, deals with whether there

is high or low formalization in the organization. The hierarchical or egalitarian dimension

determines whether there is high or low centralization. By combining the abovementioned

dimensions, Trompenaars and Woolliams were able to identity four types of culture: the

incubator culture, the guided missile culture, the family culture and the Eiffel tower culture.

 8  

Figure 4: four culture types (Trompenaars & Woolliams, 2003)

The incubator culture is a person-oriented culture characterized by low levels of formalization

and centralization. The individual obtains a powerful role, as the organization exists to fulfill

the needs of its members. As a result, the organization is seen as an instrument through which

the individuals can achieve their goals. The organization’s structure is flexible and control

only takes place in the form of persuasion or mutual concern for the other members’ needs.

The guided missile is a task-oriented culture characterized by a low level of centralization and

a high level of formalization. The relationships within the organization are results-oriented

and, therefore, are limited to the functional aspects of the members involved. Effectiveness

and achievement are seen as more important than the individual and authority. The guided

missile culture deals with high levels of change, which results in the culture being highly

adaptive, but difficult to manage. Management by objectives and pay for performance are

concepts that are likely to be used in this culture.

The family culture is a power-oriented culture characterized by a high level of centralization

and a low level of formalization. The members in this type of culture interact around the

centralized, absolute power of the leader who directs the organization. Despite the high level

of centralization, the amount of rules is low, which results in little bureaucracy. As the source

of power is the organization’s leader, its members try to be as close as possible to the center

of the organization. This focus, accompanied with trust and affinity, results in hierarchical

differentiation of power and status.

The Eiffel tower culture, as its name already suggests, is characterized by high levels of both

formalization and centralization. In this culture, there is a focus on control and respect for

authority. Members are constantly subordinated to rules and procedures in order to achieve

order and predictability in these organizations. As a result of this bureaucracy, the Eiffel

tower culture is inflexible, which leads to slow adoption to change (Trompenaars and

Wooliams, 2003).

9  

 

2.2.3 Six Dimensions to Characterize Organizational Culture Hofstede’s dimensions for describing national culture are well known, as concepts such as

power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation

have been published in several textbooks. However, Hofstede (2001) has also developed six

dimensions to specifically identify organizational culture.

The first dimension, process oriented versus results oriented, deals with organizational goals.

In process-oriented organizational cultures, people spend a limited effort in their job, avoid

risks and perceive each working day as the same. On the other hand, the results-oriented

culture consists of employees spending maximum effort in their jobs, while being

comfortable in unfamiliar situations. Additionally, employees in this organizational culture

see each day as bringing new challenges.

The second dimension, employee oriented versus job oriented, discusses the concern for

people and the concern for getting the job done. In an employee-oriented culture, personal

problems of the members are taken into account, important decisions are being made by

groups or committees and the organization focuses on employee welfare. The job-oriented

culture is characterized by a perception that the organization is only interested in the work of

the employees, and not in their personal welfare. Additionally, important decisions are being

made by individuals.

Parochial versus professional, the third dimension, discusses whether employees derive their

identity from the organization or identify themselves with their type of job. In parochial

cultures, the organization’s norms cover the employee’s behavior both at home and on the

job. Additionally, social and family backgrounds are taken into account and the employees do

not look far ahead, as they assume that that is something for the organization to do. In a

professional culture, members see their private lives as something the organization should not

interfere with. Members are hired based on job competence only and do look far ahead.

The fourth dimension deals with the communication climate within an organization. Here,

Hofstede (2001) distinguishes between open versus close systems. In open systems, members

consider themselves and the organization open to newcomers and believe that almost anyone

will fit in the organization. The contrary, the closed system, consists of members that feel

closed and secretive. As a result, there is a belief that only special people can fit into the

organization, which leads to new employees needing at least a year to feel at home.

The internal structure in an organization is discussed in the fifth dimension, which is called

loose versus tight. Loose structures focus less on cost, have less meetings and more jokes are

made about the company and the jobs of the members. In tight structures, the work

environment is more cost-conscious, there are more meetings and jokes about the company or

job rarely occur.

Hofstede’s last dimension, normative versus pragmatic, deals with the amount of structure in

 10  

the organization’s external contacts. This dimension can be related to customer orientation, as

pragmatic organizations can be seen as market driven. In pragmatic organizations there is a

large emphasis on customer needs and results, while normative organizations see correctly

following organizational procedures as most important activity. Normative organizations

attach high value to concepts such as business ethics and honesty (Hofstede, 2001).

2.3 Conclusion Organizational culture is a phenomenon of which members of an organization agree that it

exist, but have difficulties in defining what it is. This chapter has shown organizational

culture emerges from a set of shared basic assumptions to solve problems that have proved to

be working and, therefore, are being taught to newcomers as the right way to perceive, think

and feel towards these problems. As Hofstede (2001) states, it is the collective programming

of the mind. However, in order to understand organizational culture it is not sufficient to

analyze what is directly observable. Schein has shown organizational culture consists of

artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions. In order to know the

meaning and value of the artifacts and espoused beliefs and values, one needs to understand

the basic underlying assumptions in the organization.

In order to clarify what types of organizational cultures exist, typologies by Quin and

Rohrbaugh, Trompenaars and Woolliams, and Hofstede have been presented. From the

typologies, it can be concluded that the dimensions on which the different types of

organizational culture are based are largely similar. The model adapted from Burton and Obel

(2004) in which the competing values framework of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) is discussed,

bases its dimensions on organizational focus, organizational structure and organizational

means and ends. Trompenaars and Woolliams’s (2003) task or person dimension focuses on

the degree of formalization, where the hierarchical or egalitarian dimension focuses on the

amount of centralization. As a result, it can be seen that the amount of centralization in

Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) is related to the organizational structure in Quin and

Rohrbaugh (1983). Additionally, the degree of formalization can be related to organizational

means. Hofstede’s six dimensions, on the other hand, shows similarities with both the

competing values framework and the four culture types. The process versus results oriented

dimension is related to Quin and Rohrbaugh’s organizational means and ends, as they both

discuss the importance of organizational goals. Additionally, the loose versus tight dimension

of Hofstede is related to Trompenaars and Woolliams’s hierarchical or egalitarian dimension,

as they both discuss the amount of centralization within an organization.

Although these examples show overlap exists between the discussed typologies, a complete

overview of key elements that are being covered by all models needs to be presented in order

to clarify which types of organizational culture can be distinguished. Additionally, even the

11  

 

types within the dimensions of all typologies show many similarities, which can lead to four

organizational cultures that cover all the previously mentioned typologies. This will be done

in the analysis part of this thesis, which can be found in chapter five.

III. JOB STRESS 3.1 Introduction Just like organizational culture, job stress is a concept that is being used widely in daily life.

“I’m feeling stressed”, is often said to express one’s vague but existing feeling of disquiet.

Alternatively, stress is used to explain behavior of individuals that express irritation or show

forgetfulness: “He’s under a lot of stress”. According to Fontana (1989), signs of job stress

include aches, pains, sleeplessness and anxiety. Additionally, stressed employees in a certain

organization may feel miserable, lack energy and show self-absorbedness (Fontana, 1989).

Still, it is likely that there are other employees it that same organization with the same

workload that are able to stay in control of it. These employees are able to handle frustrations

in their job without getting irritated and depressed, while renewing their energy and resources

(Fontana, 1989). This chapter will discuss what stress is and which organizational and job

related characteristics can lead to job stress.

3.2 Defining Job Stress What can be stressful for one person can have little effect on others (AIS, 2004). The concept

of stress has been depicted in the Human Function Curve that has been developed by Nixon

(1974).

Figure 5: The Human Function Curve (Nixon, 1974)

 12  

Nixon (1974) showed that acceptable levels of stress even result in higher productivity up to

the point where this so-called good stress turns into distress, the type of stress described at the

beginning of this introduction. This point, the hump, differs for each person.

According to Fontana, stress in general can be described as “a demand made upon the

adaptive capabilities of the mind and body (Fontana, 1989, p. 3)”. This definition stipulates

that stress can be perceived as good or bad and shows that stress is a demand on the

individual’s capacities. Schuler shows that job stress can be defined as “a misfit between a

person's skills and abilities and demands of the job and a misfit in terms of a person's needs

supplied by the job environment” (Schuler, 1980, p. 187). More, recently Sauter (2007)

described job stress in a simplified manner as the mismatch between job demands and the

resources and capabilities of the employee. All these attempts to clarify what job stress

actually is have in common that there is a mismatch between what the organization demands

from the employee and what the capabilities and resources of the employees are.

The difference between stress in general and job stress is not the type of stress. Stress itself,

whether it occurs because of work-related or non work-related situations, does not differ, but

the difference between stress in general and job stress lies in its origins: the stressors (Smith,

2001). The stressors that can lead to job stress will be discussed in the next part of this

chapter.

3.3 The Causes of Job Stress

3.3.1 Organizational Stress-related Hazards According to Leka, Griffiths and Cox (2004), how organizations are managed and the way

work is designed can be considered as the major causes of job stress. Based on a literature

study, eight categories of stress related hazards have been identified. These categories can be

classified into two dimensions: job content and job context. However, as the researchers

already state themselves, these hazards are not universally causing job stress; it is likely that

they can cause job stress. Therefore, they will only be described briefly in order to provide an

idea of organizational elements that can contribute to job stress.

The work content dimension consists of four categories: job content, workload and work

pace, working hours, and participation and control. The job content category deals with the

task of the employee itself. Here, the main hazards are meaningless, unpleasant and aversive

tasks that lack variety. Workload and work pace includes hazards such as time pressures and

having too much to do. However, having too little to do can cause job stress as well. The

working hours category deals with hazards such as inflexible schedules, long hours that

refrain from social activity and unpredictable working hours. In the participation and control

category, the lack of both control and participation and decision-making are seen as the main

hazards for job stress.

13  

 

The work context dimension is build upon career development, the role in the organization,

interpersonal relationships and leadership. Insecurity about one’s job, being over-skilled or

under-skilled and unclear performance evaluation systems are examples of hazards in the

career development category. The role of the employee in the organization can contain

hazards when this role is unclear and when conflicting roles in the same job occur.

Additionally, responsibility for people can also become a stress-related hazard. In the

interpersonal relationships category, isolated work and unsupportive supervision are

described as the main hazards. The leadership category includes poor communication and

leadership as potential causes of job stress.

3.3.2 Towards Modeling job Stress Although the overview by Leka et al. (2004) provides examples of organizational demands

and characteristics that can cause job stress, it remains unclear in which situation job stress

occurs. In other words, these are examples of stressors: events that might trigger stress. As a

result, Leka et al. (2004) show what causes stress, but do not argue how stress is caused. For

job stress to occur, there needs to be a misfit between organizational demands and the

resources and capabilities of the employee. Therefore, more extensive and process-based

models will be discussed, which focus on positive and negative indicators of the well being of

employees. In paragraph 3.3.3, the job demands-resources model will be presented. A related

model, the demand-induced strain compensation model will be discussed in 3.3.4. Both

models show the influence of job demands and job resources on both job stress and one

another. The subsequent paragraph will deal with the vitamin model, which uses regular

vitamin intake as a basis for explaining the effect of certain job characteristics on the well

being of the employee. All three models have used the demand-control model and the effort-

reward imbalance model as foundation or point of departure. Briefly stated, the demand

control model argues job strain is caused by high job demands and low job control, while the

basic assumption in the effort-reward imbalance is that a lack of reciprocity between effort

and reward leads to stress (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006).

 14  

3.3.3 The Job-demands Resources Model

Figure 6: The Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006)

The job demands-resources model, which has been developed by Demerouti, Bakker,

Nachreiner and Schaufeli in 2001, is build around the assumption that each job can have

specific risk factors (such as the hazards portrayed in Leka et al. (2004)) that are associated

with job stress. Despite the specific nature of these risk factors, Bakker and Demerouti (2006)

argue they can be classified into two general categories: job demands and job resources (See

Figure 6). Job demands are defined as “those physical, psychological, social, or

organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological

(cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain

physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006, p. 312).” Although

physiological and psychological costs are mentioned in this definition, job demands do not

necessarily have to be negative. Following Nixon’s (1974) human function curve, Bakker and

Demerouti (2006) state job demands are negative when they require high effort while the

employee has not recovered from (previous) demands. In this case job demands turn into job

stressors, such as high work pressure, demanding client interactions or an unfavorable

physical environment.

Job resources are aspects of the job that help in achieving work goals, reduce the job demands

and their related costs and stimulate learning, development and personal growth. These

resources can be physical, social, psychological or organizational aspects of the job. The

description shows that besides helping to deal with job demands, job resources are also

important on their own, as they motivate employees on both the task-level and the general

level. Bakker and Demerouti show job resources are evident at “the level of the organization

at large (e.g. pay, career opportunities, job security), the interpersonal and social relations

15  

 

(e.g. supervisor and co-worker support, team climate), the organization of work (e.g. role

clarity, participation in decision making), and at the level of the task (e.g. skill variety, task

identity, task significance, autonomy, performance feedback)” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006, p.

312).

In the job-demands resources model, two underlying psychological processes influence the

development of job strain and motivation: the health impairment process and the motivational

process. The health impairment process states that poorly designed jobs and chronic job

demands exhaust the physical and mental resources of the employee, which leads to both a

depletion of energy and health problems. In the motivational process, job resources lead to

better performance and higher work engagement. Job resources play two roles in this process:

an intrinsic motivational role and an extrinsic motivational role. The intrinsic role fulfills

basic human needs such as autonomy, competence and relatedness. This results in employees’

learning, development and growth. The extrinsic role is key in achieving work goals, as work

environments that provide many resources support the willingness of the employees to

dedicate their effort and abilities in successfully completing the work task. Therefore, by

satisfying basic needs and achieving work goals, job resources result in employee

engagement. However, if job resources are not present, it is likely that a cynical attitude

towards work will emerge.

From the job demands-resources model, it becomes clear that it is mainly the interaction

between job demands and job resources that leads to the development of job strain and

motivation. According to Bakker and Demerouti (2006), job resources buffer the impact of

the job demands on job strain. Thus, the buffering resources can reduce generation of specific

stressors by organizational properties. Additionally, job resources can alter the perceptions

that are evoked by these stressors and even reduce the health-damaging consequences of job

stress. Some examples of resources proposed by Bakker and Demerouti include social

support, the predictability of a stressor (resources: performance feedback and role quality),

information provided by supervisors that makes the employee understand the reasons for the

presence of stressor and the extent to which the stressor is controllable by the employee

(resource: job autonomy).

Social support can help in the achievement of work goals, as colleagues can help in getting

work done, which will reduce the impact of work overload on stress. Information,

appreciation and support by leaders help employees in coping with job demands and may

even act as a protector for ill health. Furthermore, greater job autonomy leads to more

opportunities for the employee to cope with stressful situations. Additionally, constructive

feedback results in both higher work effectiveness and improved communication between

employees and supervisors.

 16  

3.3.4 The Demand-induced Strain Compensation Model Corresponding with the job demands-resources model, the demand-induced strain

compensation (DISC) model aims to integrate the demand-control model and the effort-

reward imbalance model (de Jonge, Dormann and Van Den Tooren, 2008). This model shows

many similarities with the job demands-resources model and can be seen as an addition in the

explanation of job demands and job resources.

The DISC-model is based on four key principles: the multidimensionality of concepts, the

triple matching principle, the compensation principle and the balance principle.

Multidimensionality of concepts implies that that job demands, job resources and the strains

related to the job contain emotional, cognitive and physical domains. Just like in the job

demands-resources model, stressful stimuli within the job are categorized in job demands and

job resources. However, according to de Jonge and Dormann (2003), although job resources

compensate for job demands, individuals that are confronted with job stress aim to minimize

their net loss of resources. Additionally, in the case that employees are not confronted with

job stress, resource surpluses are developed to prevent future loss. Connecting job demands

with the principle of multidimensionality of concepts leads to three types: cognitive demands

that have an effect on the brain processes that are involved in information processing,

emotional demands referring to effort needed to deal with desired emotions at interpersonal

transactions and physical demands that are related to the so-called musculo-skeletal system.

The same holds for job resources. When colleagues provide information, a cognitive-

informational component is evident. Colleagues providing affection and sympathy show the

use of an emotional component. Ergonomic aids or instrumental help of colleagues can be

seen as a physical component of job resources.

The triple match principle argues the strongest and most interactive relationships between job

demands and job resources can be seen when demands, resource and strains are based on

identical dimensions. A straightforward example is that emotional support by colleagues

buffers between emotional demands and emotional exhaustion. Additionally, the triple match

principle states stressors should match strains as well. For example, angry or insolent

customers are more likely to cause emotional disorders than physical complaints.

The compensation principle proposes, just like the job demands-resources model, that job

demands can be counteracted through job resources. However, this model adds that job

resources within the same domain (cognitive, emotional or physical) are more likely to

counteract job demands.

Therefore, de Jonge et al. (2008) conclude that in the ideal situation, a balanced mixture exists

of job demands and corresponding job resources within the same domains, which is called the

balance principle. However, if matching within these domains does not occur, it is likely that

17  

 

job stress will emerge. The demand-induced strain compensation model has been depicted in

Figure 7.

Figure 7: The Demand-Induced Strain Compensation Model (de Jonge et al., 2008)

3.3.5 The Vitamin Model Warr’s vitamin model compares the effect of vitamins on our physical health to the effect of

job characteristics on our mental health (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998). Vitamins influence the

human body. As a lack of vitamins can result in physical illness, one generally tries to take in

vitamins in order to improve health and physical functioning. However, continuous intake of

vitamins does not lead to an endless improvement. Instead, it can lead to two different kinds

of effects: the constant effect and the additional decrement. When the constant effect occurs,

health neither improves nor declines. According to Warr, this occurs by vitamin C and E

intake (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998). On the other hand, an overdose of vitamin use can lead

to a toxic concentration in the body, which results in ill health. When taken in large

quantities, vitamins A and D are known to be toxic. Therefore this relation is labeled as AD

(Additional Decrement).

This has been graphically displayed in Figure 8.

Figure 8: War’s Vitamin Model (de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998)

 

 18  

Warr’s argument is that the effect of job characteristics on mental health follows the same

pattern. A specific job characteristic initially has a beneficial effect on the mental health of

employees (section A), as their absence would decrease mental health. However, beyond a

certain level, a plateau has been reached (section B). Further increase in that specific job

characteristic can produce a constant effect or can impair mental health (section C). Warr’s

research shows that nine features of jobs can potentially determine job-related mental health.

The following six job characteristics have the same effects as vitamin A and D: task feedback,

skill variety, skill utilization, social support, job demands and job autonomy. For example, job

autonomy has shown to be beneficial for dealing with job stress, as can be seen from the job

demands-resources model. However, very high levels of job autonomy can be harmful for

employees, as it implies uncertainty and high responsibility.

Salary, job significance and safety follow the vitamin C and E pattern. Initially, it is likely

that safety positively influences the employee’s mental health. However, there is a point at

which employees already perceive the working environment as safe. As a result, any further

increase in safety measures does not further increase the employees’ mental health.

3.4 Conclusion This chapter has shown that stress itself does not necessarily have to be negative. Acceptable

levels of stress result in higher productivity up to the point where the “good stress” turns into

distress. The hump often occurs at the point where the employee is not able to recover from

the high effort that is demanded by the job or when there is an “overdose” of specific job

resources. As a result, job stress emerges when there is a mismatch between organizational

demands and the capabilities and resources of employees. This chapter specifically dealt with

job demands and job resources. The capabilities of the employee will be partly covered in the

next chapter. Leka et al. (2004) have shown a broad overview of possible causes of job stress.

However, although their identification makes clear what kind of stress-related hazards exist,

this overview only provides examples that might trigger stress. In order to stay close to the

definition of job stress, three models have been presented: the job demands-resources (JDR)

model, the demand-induced strain compensation (DISC) model and the vitamin model.

Comparing these three models shows they all agree job resources can act as buffer for job

demands. Furthermore, the JDR and DISC model both show job demands are only negative

when high effort is required from which the employee has not been recovered yet. As a result,

chronic job demands and poorly designed jobs are likely to lead to health problems, whereas

job resources result in employee engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). The DISC-model

supplements the JDR model by arguing job demands should be counteracted by job resources

in the same domain (cognitive, emotional and physical) in order to prevent job stress. In other

words, when there is no match between the domains of job demands and job resources, it is

19  

 

likely for job stress to occur. However, War shows in the Vitamin model although job

resources and job demands should match, at certain high levels of job characteristics there is

either no increase of employee well-being or a decrease in mental health (de Jonge &

Schaufeli, 1998). Therefore, in the case of a decrease, the job resource is less able to act as a

buffer, which can result in job stress.

What needs to be taken into account is that the effects of the concepts that have been

discussed throughout this chapter differ for each employee. As a result, the next chapter will

present the moderating effect of personality

IV. PERSONALITY 4.1 Introduction Recently, vice president of the United States Joe Biden has been interviewed by CNN

television host Larry King. When he was asked how he thought about the former republican

nominee for Vice President of the United States, Sarah Palin, he responded by saying: “She

has a great personality” (CNN, 2010). What does this mean? It is likely that most people will

have some general idea of what is meant by this sentence, but to define personality is more

difficult than it initially seems to be. Still, personalities of individuals are being described and

assessed continuously. What does and does not fall under the umbrella of personality? First, it

is necessary to arrive at a definition of personality.

4.2 Defining Personality According to Corr and Matthews (2009), defining personality is affected by how one is

selecting variables by studying this phenomenon and how one will determine what has to be

tested when conducting a personality test. However, when you talk about the phenomenon of

personality and the concept of a personality test, then you already presuppose there is

something like personality on itself. Personality can be defined in two contrasting manners:

either as a set of attributes characterizing the individual or as the underlying system

generating these attributes. However, Funder was able to develop a division that took both

into account: “personality is an individual’s characteristic patterns of thought, emotion and

behavior, together with the psychological mechanisms – hidden or not – behind those

patterns” (Funder, 1997, p. 1). Although this definition does not show what these

characteristic patterns exactly are, it is in line with most other definitions of personality (Corr

& Matthews, 2009). In 1937, Allport reviewed fifty distinct meanings of personality.

According to Corr and Matthews (2009), Funder’s definition fits all of them as a result of its

relatively broad continuum. Allport defines personality as “the dynamic organization within

the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his

environment” (Corr & Matthews, 2009, p. 380). Here, the focus is on the underlying

 20  

mechanisms that generate personality, but also in this case one cannot deny that personality is

made up of patterns of thoughts, feelings and behavior that make one unique. A fundamental

characteristic of personality is that in general it is perceived to be consistent, which means

that there is a recognizable regularity and order to behavior. Additionally, personality is both

a psychological and physiological concept. Next to being a psychological construct,

personality is influenced by biological processes as well (Corr & Matthews, 2009).

Besides the wide variety of definitions of personality, a considerable amount of theories

concerning the development of personality has been developed. The major perspectives on

personality include type theories, psychodynamic theories, behavioral theories, humanist

theories and trait theories.

Type theories provide so-called personality types, while stipulating biological influences. For

example, according to type A/type B theory, a type A personality can be loosely described as

a person that aggressively wants to achieve more and more in less time. Despite that this type

theory is well known, it has been under a lot of criticism by other researchers, which have

labeled it as ‘obsolete’ (Corr & Matthews, 2009).

Psychodynamic theories focus on the relation between the unconscious on personality.

Behavioral theories see personality as the result of interaction between the individual and the

environment, thereby excluding feelings and thoughts. The importance of free will and

individual experience is being discussed in humanist theories. However, this thesis will focus

on trait theory, which considers personality as the result of genetically based internal

characteristics (Corr & Matthews, 2009). Traits can be described as relatively stable patterns

of behaviors, affect and cognitions (Fleeson, 2001). The most widely used trait theory, which

categorizes almost all trait descriptions in five broad domains, are the Big Five Personality

Traits that will be presented in the next section of this chapter.

4.3 The Big Five Personality Traits Since 1932, numerous researchers have tried to classify personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

However, it was Norman who labeled discovered factors in order to describe personality,

which are used frequently in literature since 1963. These labels are called “The Big Five” and

consist of “Extraversion, Emotional stability, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and

Openness to Experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.2).”

The Big Five Personality Traits present five independent dimensions determining personality,

which makes it applicable for studying differences between persons. Although researchers

disagree about the precise definition of the five factors, there is a general agreement in the

personality traits that define the factors (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Corr & Matthews, 2009).

The first factor, Extraversion, is associated with being “active, talkative, assertive, sociable

and gregarious (Barrick & Mount, 1991: p.4).” This dimension deals with the comfort level

21  

 

of the individual regarding relationships. On the contrary, introverted persons tend to be quiet,

timid and reserved (Robbins, 2000).

High negative levels of emotional Stability, the second factor, are linked to “being anxious,

depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried and insecure (Barrick & Mount, 1991,

p.4).” As a result, this dimension deals with the ability of a person to withstand stress

(Robbins, 2000). Individuals with positive emotional stability are likely to be self-confident,

calm and secure.

According to Barrick and Mount (1991), Agreeableness, the third factor, is related to the

friendliness and likability of a person. The traits that are being associated with highly

agreeable persons are “being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative,

forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.4).” The dimension discusses

the natural tendency of an individual to defer on others. Individuals scoring low on

agreeableness can be described as cold and antagonistic (Robbins, 2000).

Conscientiousness, the fourth factor, includes both elements of a person’s free will and the

dependability of a person. Additionally, it can be seen as a measure of reliability. The traits

related to this factor have been defined as “being careful, thorough, responsible, organized,

planful, hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering (Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.4).”

Individuals scoring low on this dimension are disorganized, easily distracted and unreliable

(Robbins, 2000).

Openness to experience, the fifth dimension, has been associated with traits as “being

imaginative, cultured, curious, original, broad-minded, intelligent, and artistically sensitive

(Barrick & Mount, 1991, p.5).” As a result, this dimension deals with the range of interest and

the fascination with novelty of an individual. Therefore, individuals scoring low on openness

to experience can be seen as conventional and are likely to find comfort in the familiar.

4.4 Person-job Fit There has always been an interest of organizations in the personality of employees, as it

enabled matching individuals to specific jobs. According to Robbins (2000), job requirements

act as a moderator between personality characteristics and job performance. Matching job

requirements with personality characteristics has formed the basis for the person-job fit theory

that has been developed by Holland (1985). As a result, six personality types have been

developed, with as main proposition of the model that job satisfaction and the natural

tendency to leave a job are dependent on whether individuals successfully match their

personality to the occupational environment (Robbins, 2000). Each personality type is

accompanied by both personality characteristics and a congruent occupational environment.

Holland (1985) has identified the following personality types: realistic, investigative, social,

conventional, enterprising and artistic.

 22  

Realistic persons tend to prefer physical activities that require strength, skill and coordination.

These persons are likely to be practical, genuine, persistent, conforming and shy. Examples of

congruent occupations are farmers, mechanics and assembly-line workers.

Investigative persons are thinkers that prefer organizing and understanding. Their personality

can be characterized by being original, analytical, independent and curious. According to

Holland (1985), being a news reporter, economist and mathematician are examples of

congruent occupations.

Social persons tend to prefer activities that involve developing and helping others. These

persons can be characterized by being cooperative, sociable, understanding and friendly.

Examples of the congruent occupations are teachers, social workers and counselors.

Conventional persons prefer orderly, rule-regulated unambiguous activities. Personality

characteristics that can be assigned to these persons are being efficient, conforming, inflexible

and unimaginative. As examples of congruent occupations, Holland suggests jobs as

accountant, bank teller and file clerk.

Enterprising persons focus on power and prefer activities in which there are opportunities to

verbally influence others. Characteristics that can be related to these persons are being

dominant, self-confident, ambitious and energetic. As examples of congruent occupations,

lawyer, real estate agent and small business manager are suggested.

Artistic persons prefer unsystematic and ambiguous activities in which they are allowed to

express their creativity. These persons can be characterized as being imaginative, impractical,

disorderly and emotional. Being a painter, writer or musician are examples of congruent

occupations.

By developing a so-called Vocational Preference Inventory questionnaire containing

occupational titles, Holland has been able to develop personality profiles that have led to the

diagram that has been presented in Figure 9. From this figure it shows the closer two fields or

orientations are, the more compatible they are with one another. For example, a realistic

person is best of in a realistic job, as this is the most congruent situation. As a result, this

person is more likely to be satisfied with his or her job. Taking the opposite, a realistic person

in a social job is in the most incongruent situation and, therefore, will be less satisfied with

his or her job (Robbins, 2000).

23  

 

Figure 9: Holland’s (1985) hexagonal diagram

Approximately fifteen years after Holland’s model has been published, attention has

expanded to matching individuals to organizations in addition to matching individuals to jobs.

Robbins (2000) argues when an organization is facing a dynamic and changing environment,

it is likely to require employees that can easily move between teams and can readily change

tasks. In this case, it is more important that the personalities fit with the organization as a

whole instead of the characteristics of specific jobs. This so-called person-organization fit

will be discussed in the analysis section.

4.5 Conclusion Defining personality has shown to be more difficult than one would initially expect.

According to Corr and Matthews (2009), this is due to variables selected and the manner in

which it is decided what and how to test when conducting a personality test. Despite the wide

variety of definitions, it is agreed upon that personality is made up of patterns of thoughts,

feelings and behavior that make one unique. Additionally, personality is both a consistent

psychological and physiological concept.

A brief overview of different personality theories has been provided, which resulted in a more

detailed display of one specific trait theory: the Big Five Personality Traits. The five labels of

this personality trait theory help in describing the personality of the individual. Furthermore,

Holland’s person-job fit model has shown six personality types and their congruent

occupations. Additionally, by using the hexagonal diagram one can see which job will fit best

with one’s personality. An enterprising person will be best of in an enterprising job. Other

(less) congruent jobs will be conventional or social jobs, while the least congruent job is an

investigative job.

 24  

When further examining both the Big Five and the person-job fit, it can be seen that some

labels and types overlap one another. This could imply that if one scores high on a specific

label it is likely to match a related personality type with its accompanied congruent

occupation. For example, the openness to experience label deals with the range of interests

and fascination of novelty of the individual. This can be related to the artistic personality, as

they are both focused on being imaginative, creative, emotional and artistically sensitive. The

social person type corresponds with both the extraversion and the agreeableness label, as they

all focus on being sociable, cooperative and understanding.

The person-job fit model at the micro level will be supplemented by connecting the Big Five

Personality Traits to organization culture. This macro level person-organization fit analysis

will be conducted in the analysis section.

V. ANALYSIS In this part of the thesis, the aforementioned theories will be applied and combined in order to

create a new model that explains the relationship between organizational culture and job

stress, including the influence of personality. At the macro level, the organizational culture

models will be analyzed in order to develop a new model of organizational culture, which will

be supported with relevant examples. The meso level, analyzing job stress, will present both

the demands and resources of the new organizational cultures. Personality, the micro level,

will be analyzed by connecting the Big Five Personality Traits to organizational culture.

5.1 The Macro Level

5.1.1 Organizational Culture Models: Similarities (and Differences) The concluding remarks at the end of the second chapter (§2.3) already indicated that the

dimensions on which the different models of organizational culture are based are largely

similar. The Competing Values Framework (Quin & Rohrbaugh, 1983) bases its dimensions

on organizational focus and organizational structure. Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003)

have labeled their dimensions task or person (degree of formalization) and hierarchical or

egalitarian (degree of centralization). Additionally, two dimensions of Hofstede’s (2001) Six

Dimensions Model can be added to the aforementioned models, namely: process oriented

versus results oriented, employee versus job oriented and loose versus tight. In order to clarify

all these dimensions, table 1 is presented below.

25  

 

Table 1: Matching dimensions of the three typologies of organizational culture

Axis Quin &

Rohrbaugh (1983)

Trompenaars &

Woolliams (2003)

Hofstede (2001)

X Organizational

Focus

Task or Person Employee vs. Job-

oriented

Y Organizational

Structure

Hierarchical or

Egalitarian

Loose vs. Tight

The organizational focus dimension of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) ranges from an internal

emphasis on the well-being and development of the employees to an external emphasis on the

well-being and development of the organization itself. This can be related to the task or

person dimension of Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) and the employee-oriented versus

job-oriented dimension of Hofstede (2001), as those both distinguish between either focusing

on the employee or focusing on the job.

When investigating the so-called Y-axes of the models, it can be seen that the organizational

structure dimension of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) matches the hierarchical or egalitarian

dimension of Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003), as they both refer to the amount of

centralization within the organization. Additionally, Hofstede’s loose versus tight dimension

can be added to this comparison as this dimension focuses on the extent to which the

organization is structured.

Besides the existence of overlapping between the dimensions, most cultures that have been

distinguished by the authors can be related to one another as well. This has been displayed in

figure 10.

Figure 10: Connecting the Cultures

The rational goal culture can be described as a result-oriented culture, which is characterized

by tough leaders who focus on winning. Competitive actions and the achievement of

measurable goals and targets are key elements of culture. According to Burton and Obel

(2004) this results in low loyalty, low trust, low resistance to change and a high level of

 26  

conflict. On the other hand, the guided missile culture has been described as task and result-

oriented. As a result, there is a low level of centralization and a high level of formalization.

Effectiveness and achievement are more important than the employee and authority.

According to Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003), the guided missile culture is subject to

change, which is difficult to manage. However, the culture itself is adaptive (Trompenaars

and Woolliams, 2003). This would explain the high level of conflict and high resistance to

change in The Competing Values framework, but show that the culture itself is able to adapt

to the environment. However, one important difference between these to types of

organizational culture has to be noted. Although the main focus of both cultures is the

achievement of targets and goals, the rational goal culture is more centralized in comparison

to the guided missile culture.

The internal process culture of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983) can be described as a structured

and formalized place to work. What the employees are required to do is based on

organizational procedures. High resistance to change, a low level of trust and a low level of

employee morale characterize this culture. Similarly, the Eiffel tower culture is characterized

by high levels of both formalization and centralization. This culture is focused on control and

respect for authority. Also here, employees are subordinated to rules and procedures in order

to achieve order and predictability. Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) also state the Eiffel

tower is an inflexible culture, which leads to slow adaptation to change. Therefore, it can be

concluded that the internal process culture is almost exactly similar to the Eiffel tower

culture.

Quin and Rohrbaugh’s (1983) developmental culture can be described as creative,

entrepreneurial and dynamic place to work in. This can be characterized by a low level of

conflict and a high level of trust. The employees working in this culture can be considered

risk-takers and innovators who do not mind changing environments, as the culture focuses on

innovation, growth and the acquisition of new resources. This mindset is replicated by

Trompenaars and Woolliams’ (2003) incubator culture, which is described as a flexible

culture that focuses on the achievement of the goals of its members. The culture is

characterized by a low level of both formalization and centralization. The person-oriented

character of this culture results in a powerful role of the individual. It can be seen that Quin

and Rohrbaugh (1983) describe this culture as a more risk-taking endeavor of individuals

compared to powerful person-oriented culture of Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) that

focuses on the achievement of the goals of its individual members. However, in the end it

boils down to the same idea: an entrepreneurial climate with low formalization and

centralization where individuals can dynamically achieve their goals.

Although it can be seen that these first three pairs of cultures largely overlap, there is a

mismatch between Quin and Rorhbaugh’s (1983) group culture and Trompenaars and

27  

 

Woolliams’ (2003) family culture. The group culture can be described as a culture with a low

level of conflict and a high level of trust. This corresponds with the family culture, which

focuses on trust and affinity. However, the group culture is focused less on individual

rewards, while this is inevitable in the family culture. This inevitability stems from main

difference between these two cultures: the amount of centralization. The family culture is

based around the leader, who is the centralized, absolute power. As a result, there is a

hierarchical differentiation of power and status; something that cannot be found in the

equalitarian group culture. However, despite it is impossible to connect these two cultures,

they do share the most important characteristic with each other: cohesion. Both cultures are

highly cohesive groups consisting of members that feel connected to one another. The

difference between the two cultures is the division of power. By investigating and comparing

the different organizational cultures that have been mentioned above, a new model for

organizational culture has been developed: The Four Culture Typology.

5.1.2 Towards a New Model of Organizational Culture As can be seen from Table 1, both axes of the models of Quin and Rorhbaugh (1983) and

Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) can be combined. Additionally, two of the six

dimensions of Hofstede (2001) can be added to this comparison. As a result, two new axes

have been developed. The X-axis is called employee-focused versus result-focused, and

distinguishes between an emphasis on the employee and an emphasis on results. The Y-axis is

labeled centralized versus decentralized and distinguishes, as its name already suggests,

between the amount of centralization of the organizational cultures.

Now that the two axes have been developed, four organizational cultures have been created,

which have been depicted in figure 11: the target culture, the functional culture, the

innovation culture and the pack culture.

 28  

Figure 11: The Four Culture Typology

The target culture can be seen as a combination of the guided missile culture and the rational

goal culture, as it is a result-oriented culture. However, it tends a bit more towards the guided

missile culture, as it is depicted as a decentralized culture. This is done because its main focus

lies at the achievement of results. It is the end goal that counts and not the way that leads

toward this end goal. Therefore, the employees in this culture have more autonomy than they

would have according to the description of the rational goal culture. An example of a target

culture is Enron.

Enron was founded in 1985 when a merger occurred between two Houston pipeline

companies. Three years later, the company turned into a so-called “energy-broker” by

connecting buyers and sellers in the power industry. The company earned money by the profit

made on the difference between the buying and selling prices. Hence, the importance of

closing deals among these parties. Deregulation allowed Enron to be creative in order for

these deals to happen. Enron stimulated a culture that rewarded “cleverness”, which resulted

in pushing the limits to be a survival skill. Former CEO Jeffry Skilling had as espoused belief

“Do it right, do it now and do it better”, which emphasized the need for independent,

innovative and aggressive employees. In this result-oriented culture, Enron employees have a

self-image and espoused belief of being the best, the brightest and the cleverest. And if you

meet those qualifications, you do not make business deals that fail.

Although this is quite an extreme example of a target culture, the following quotes from

former Enron employees do match with the description of the target culture that has been

provided above. These quotes mainly show the focus on results rather than how these results

are derived:

“Profits at all costs” (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003, p.247).

“The best workers (determined through day-to-day bottom line results) received staggering

incentives and exorbitant bonuses. One example of this was Car Day. On this day, an array of

lavish sports cars arrived for the most successful employees” (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003, p.

251).

The functional culture, as its name and logo already suggest, is focused around rules, order

and hierarchy. One is focused on results, but the way to reach these goals is by procedures,

goals and predictability. This efficient, but inflexible and bureaucratic culture is a

combination of both the internal process culture as well as the Eiffel tower culture.

As an example of a functional culture, the well-known assembly line of Henry Ford could

have been presented. However, a more recent example of the functional culture can be found

in McDonalds restaurants. In this well-known international fast-food chain, which is highly

29  

 

focused on efficiency and standardization, a functional culture is evident as can be seen in

McDonalds’ rules, order and hierarchy. As Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds, based the

chain’s principles on customer quality, service, cleanliness and value (the basic underlying

assumptions), which today is being supplemented by “giving back” to the communities in

which the company does business (Kincheloo, 2002). For this example of a functional culture,

one can specifically look at the culture within the restaurants (instead of as the franchise

system as a whole). Kroc’s principles are being put into practice by means of standardized

processes, which in the end have resulted in a Big Mac hamburger (which can be seen as an

artifact of the McDonalds culture) to taste the same all over the world. To enable this same

experience over and over again, McDonald’s restaurants make use of standardized processes

and a hierarchical organization. Despite some local customizations in the country of

residence, McDonalds restaurants are largely similar to one another. Just like Henry Ford’s

assembly line for cars, the food is ‘assembled’ in a standardized manner by employees

performing specialized tasks. This has even led to Merriam-Webster adding the word McJob

to the dictionary. The word has been defined as “a low-paying job that requires little skill and

provides little opportunity for advancement” (Merriam-Webster, 2010). Although this

definition has been criticized by (employees of) McDonalds, it can be said that this

standardized approach is efficient, but inflexible (the efficiency will, for example, decrease

once customers start ordering customized burgers).

The innovation culture is a decentralized and employee-focused culture, which results in a

highly creative and dynamic environment where its risk-taking members are autonomous in

their actions. This results in a culture where development can take place, hence, the name

innovation culture. The culture combines the innovative character of the developmental

culture with powerful individual focus of the incubator culture.

3M is a 108 year-old industrial company that is characterized by inventions such as masking

tape, Thinsulate and the famous Post-It notes. According to Larry Wendling, 3M’s vice

president of the corporate research lab, 3M has managed to continue to stay inventive because

the company relies on so-called seven pillars of innovation; 3M’s basic underlying

assumptions. For the company’s organizational culture this implies that it is fully committed

to innovation from chief executive on down. As an industrial manufacturer, 3M spends

unusually high amounts on Research & Development (R&D) in order to stimulate innovation.

Furthermore, (and this directly matches the innovation culture in the Four Culture Typology)

the company focuses on “hiring good people and let them do their job in their own ways. And

tolerate mistakes” (BusinessWeek, 2006). Employees that join the company also learn the

stories about 3M developing the first audiotape, or Scotchgard (signs of artifacts). As

BusinessWeek states, “tribes and peoples keep their cultures alive through oral histories; so

 30  

does 3M” (BusinessWeek, 2006). By maintaining a highly autonomous workforce, 3M also

hopes to engage their employees to innovate on all kinds of technologies, because according

to Wendling, companies that remain one-dimensional run out of ideas after a first success.

Furthermore, 3M puts a lot of emphasis on communication among its employees, so best

practices are being shared. Labs are allowed to host their own conferences and webcasts, and

can set up governing bodies for policy-setting.

3M sets individual expectations for each employee and rewards them when outstanding work

is delivered. 3M even developed a so-called dual-career ladder, which enables research

veterans to continuously move up without becoming a manager if they do not wish to become

one. Additionally, employees are being stimulated to work on their own inventions during

working hours. The company’s official policy allowed employees to use 15% of their time for

pursuing independent projects. Furthermore, 3M is a company that encourages risk and

tolerates failure. This description of 3M fits the decentralized and risk-taking, employee-

focused innovation culture, as both the focus on the individual employee and the strive for

development and innovation are evident at 3M.

The label pack culture has been coined as it refers to social groups formed by canines. In

canine packs there is one alpha dog, the leader, who forms the central point in the group. The

others are formed around the alpha dog, while there is a strong focus on group cohesion. The

same holds for this organizational culture. This culture with a central leader is based on group

cohesion and, therefore, has a high level of trust and affinity. Just like canines voluntarily

hunt in packs, this culture values teamwork, participation and concern for people. As a result,

this culture is a combination of the centralized power of the family culture and the focus on

cohesion of both the group culture as well as the family culture.

Honda Motor Co. Ltd. has been founded by Soichiro Honda and Takeo Fujisawa in 1948

(Furlan, 2002). The company started by producing engines that were attached to bicycles.

Today, Honda has obtained a leadership position in the fields of motorcycles, automobiles

and power products. Both Honda and Fujisawa (the “alpha dogs”) have played a major role in

the growth of Honda since its foundation. Furlan (2002) believes the most valuable thing of

Honda is the philosophy of its founders, which are the basic underlying assumptions of this

culture. This philosophy serves at the basis of the company’s business endeavors. In this

philosophy, the “Honda family” is described, which shows the existence of the pack culture

within this company. In a translated endeavor of vice president of Honda Italy, Umberto

Furlan, the combination of family and group culture that has formed the pack culture, can

especially be seen in the part that discusses the respect for the employee. Honda is composed

of individuals, which are called associates that work together for a common purpose. Using

31  

 

the word associates instead of referring to employees indicates the cohesive character of this

organizational culture.

“Every associate is important; every associate should be respected; every associate should be

given the opportunity to develop his or her full potential; every associate should be expected

to contribute to the company’s success; every associate should be honored for his or her

efforts and contribution” (Furlan, 2002, p. 4). This shows the emphasis on stimulating

participation and the concern for people. Another characterizing idea of the pack culture can

be found in the philosophy of Honda, namely the statement that one should think creatively

and act on their own initiative, but at the same time understand that responsibility should be

taken for the results of those actions. Furthermore, in Honda and Fujisawa’s philosophy it is

stated that relationships among Honda associates should be based on mutual trust. Trust is

created by respecting and recognizing each other as individuals, helping each other out,

accepting help when you are in need of it, sharing knowledge and fulfilling responsibility.

This almost exactly matches the characteristics of the group culture, which has formed the

basis for the pack culture in the Four Culture Typology.

5.2 The Meso Level In chapter three it has been concluded that acceptable levels of stress can even result in higher

productivity up to the point where this “good stress” turns in distress. The area after this

turning point, the hump, is where there is a mismatch between job demands and the resources

and capabilities of the employee. This part of the analysis will focus on job demands and job

resources of the organizational cultures presented in the Four Culture Typology. The

capabilities of the employee will be discussed in the micro level part of the analysis.

5.2.1 Job Stress: The Demands and Resources of the Organizational Cultures Based on the brief business cases that have been presented in paragraph 5.1.2, numerous job

demands and job resources can be derived. In table 2, job demands and job resources that

have been suggested by Demerouti and Bakker (2006) have been connected to the Four

Culture Typology. Job demands require both psychological and physical effort and skills, and

are associated with psychological and physical costs. On the other hand, the job resources

counter these job demands and help in achieving goals, while also stimulating learning,

development and personal growth.

 32  

5.2.2 Target Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources Job demands of the target culture are that its members are required to achieve the goals that

have been set out by the supervisors “at all costs”. This can be a heavy stress-causing

demand, as this focus on achieving goals continuously requires a great deal of effort and skills

from the members of this culture. The continuous nature of this job demand makes it difficult

to recover from the demands on the member’s capabilities. Therefore, achieving goals at all

costs can result in job stress going over the hump, which leads to distress.

Furthermore, members of this culture are required to be both autonomous and aggressive,

which are cognitive demands, in their decision making in order to force actions that help in

achieving the company’s goals. Employing an aggressive work style is more likely to lead to

conflicts in compared to a more passive work style. This can result in negative job stress.

Independent decision-making is a job demand that is connected to job autonomy as a job

resource. On one hand, autonomy can result in a decrease of stress as it provides the

individual more freedom to work in a way he or she prefers. Job autonomy enables individual

decision making “as long as the goals are attained”. However, as discussed in the Vitamin

model of War (de Jonge, 1998), too much “intake” of AD-vitamins causes a decline in the

affective well being of the employee. In other words, too much of this cognitive resource,

Target  Culture   Functional  Culture  

Innovation  Culture  

Pack  Culture  

Achieving  goals  “at  all  costs”  

Efficiency  in  standardized  tasks  

Flexibility     Respect  for  one  another  

Aggressive  work  style  

Following  rules  and  procedures  

Being  a  autonomous  risk-­‐taker    

Satisfying  the  goals  of  the  leader  

Independent  decision-­‐making  

Relying  on  hierarchy  

Withstand  ambiguity  about  success  

Responsibility  

Job  autonomy   Role  clarity   Job  autonomy   Job  security  Pay   Performance  

feedback  Supervisor  and  co-­‐worker  support  

Trust  and  support  

Career  opportunities  

Training   Skill  variety   Task  significance  

Job

Res

ourc

es

Job

Dem

ands

Jo

b D

eman

ds

Table 2: Job demands and job resources connected to the Four Culture Typology

33  

 

although it is a job resource, can result in negative stress. Being too autonomous is likely to

lead to job stress, as it results in higher responsibility and more anxiety.

Another job resource of the target culture is pay, as it can help in partly offsetting the high

pressure its employees have to deal with. Those with outstanding performance by reaching

the goals are rewarded in terms of money or material compensation (with as an extreme

example Enron’s Car Day). Although pay does not directly decrease any potential negative

job stress, it stimulates the members of this culture in continuing to work hard, as money is

what they are working for. Related to pay are career opportunities. Career opportunities work

by the same principle as pay: they do not directly help in decreasing job stress, but they do

help in ascertaining the members of the target culture in establishing personal goals and

enable them to personally grow and develop.

5.2.3 Functional Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources The characteristic job demands of the functional culture are that its members need to be

efficient in the standardized tasks they perform. This need for efficiency, which is connected

to goals (e.g. output goals), can be seen as a potential creator of job stress. In order to prevent

deviation from that what is expected, training is required. As a result, the members of the

functional culture are required to follow an extensive set of rules and procedures, thereby

cognitive demands, which is accompanied by a strict hierarchy. Although rules and

procedures reduce uncertainty, as they can serve as guidelines “to hold on to” for the

members of this culture, they can also be potential stressors. Members of this culture need to

achieve goals in a highly efficient and standardized manner. As a result, they do not have the

autonomy to decide for themselves in what way they prefer to work. The same holds for

hierarchy. This concept leads to clarity and certainty, as every member knows who is in

charge and, more importantly, who is responsible. However, this hierarchy can also serve as a

job stressor, as the members of the functional culture are likely to have series of superiors to

report to. Obviously, the other organizational cultures are also likely to have superiors to

whom members are required to report, but this does not occur in the extensive manner that is

the case in the functional culture.

One of the job resources of the functional culture is role clarity. Because of this resource, it is

likely that the members of the functional culture know exactly what to do, while in the case of

a deviating situation they can always resort to their supervisor as he or she is up the hierarchy.

As a result, this job resource counters potential negative job stress. Related to this cognitive

resource is performance feedback. Because the tasks that are performed by the members of

the functional culture are set up in a predictable and standardized manner, performance can be

easily measured and benchmarked against other members. As a result, superiors are able to

provide performance feedback to their employees, which stimulates development and growth,

while taking away ambiguity about how to perform their tasks.

 34  

Efficiency in standardized tasks requires training, which results in this job resource playing a

key role in the functional culture. Without training in how to perform one’s job in a functional

culture, it will be unlikely that the required efficiency will be reached, as training helps the

members of this culture to familiarize themselves with rules and procedures.

5.2.4 Innovation Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources   As its name already suggests, the most important job demand for members of the innovation

culture is having the creative skills that result in innovation, such as flexibility. Innovation is

not something you can plan out entirely. Unfortunately it is not possible to schedule one

invention for Wednesday morning, followed by another on Friday afternoon. As a result, the

innovation culture requires a great deal of flexibility from its members, as this is needed for

its dynamic and creative nature. Therefore, this required flexibility could potentially lead to

negative job stress.

In the example of 3M it already shows that innovation does not come without risks.

Therefore, the members of the innovation culture are required to be risk-takers. As discussed

in the target culture, being required to autonomously making decisions can, to a certain

extent, result in a decrease of job stress. However, the uncertainty and anxiety that comes

with this job demand can also increase job stress. Therefore, in this case where both

autonomous decision-making and risk-taking are required, it is possible for negative job stress

to emerge. Related to being able to take risks, the members of the innovation culture also

have to deal with the ambiguity of having or not having success on their road to innovation.

Outcomes are not guaranteed, as it is likely to be the case in the functional culture. As a

result, this uncertainty can lead to job stress.

Also in the innovation culture, job autonomy is an important job resource. In the business

case of 3M, it can be seen that 3M’s employees are allowed to make decisions for themselves

and can spend 15% of their time on their own independent projects. Related to this job

resource is the support that members from this culture are giving to one another. Members are

free to organize symposiums and connect to other members of the culture in order to expand

their network for support when it is needed. Additionally, even when members are not in need

of help, other members can pitch ideas on their current projects in order to stimulate

innovation. Therefore, this support can counter the job stress that might emerge from the

ambiguity about success and the need for taking risk autonomously. Innovation requires

different tasks, thus also different skills. As the 3M business case shows, this is done by

stimulating its members to look at all different kinds of technology in order to let them

acquire a broad spectrum of skills and ideas, which positively influences development of the

members of the culture. As Bakker and Demerouti (2006) have shown, performing the same

task over an over again can lead to job stress, while task and skill variety have shown to

decrease job stress.

35  

 

5.2.5 Pack Culture: Job Demands and Job Resources In the business case of Honda, the founders’ philosophy focuses on cohesiveness and respect

for every individual working for the company. Every associate in the family is expected to

contribute to the company’s success. This is done by following the vision and the goals that

have been developed by the member’s leader. Because of the central position of the leader

and the desire of the members of this culture to position themselves as close as possible to

him or her, a significant amount of effort and skills are continuously expected from its

members, which can result in negative stress. Although the members are stimulated to be

creative in attaining those goals, they have to take responsibility for their actions. Because

this culture is characterized by its members’ commitment to the organization, responsibility

might serve as a stressor, because failure is not only failure for the member, but also for his or

her leader and the organization as a whole. The pack culture is characterized by the

importance of trust among its members. As a result, employees are required to help one

another and, on the other hand, accept help when they are in need of it.

One of the characterizing job resources of the pack culture is job safety. Once an employee

becomes a member of the group, full commitment is expected while it is unlikely that the

member will leave the group. In return, it is highly unlikely that the member will be fired,

even with the aforementioned emphasis on taking responsibility for one’s actions. As a result,

this job resource should decrease job stress, as members of this culture are less likely to be

fired compared to the other cultures. Trusting and supporting one another are job demands, as

they require effort and skills of the members. However, at the same time they are also both

cognitive and emotional job resources, as they help members achieving goals and stimulate

learning and development. The quote of the Honda philosophy in which it is stated that every

associate is important, should be respected and should be honored for his or her efforts and

contributions shows the value that is attached to task significance. With this approach, loyalty

is further stimulated, which gives the members the feeling that their task is contributing value

to the company who is embodying the pack culture. This task-level job resource serves as a

buffer for job demands, thereby reducing (potential) job stress (Demerouti & Bakker, 2006).

5.2.6 Job Stress and Organizational Culture In Table 2, the job demands and job resources of the four organizational cultures have been

presented. Although the previous paragraphs have shown all job demands can potentially

cause negative job stress, some job demands are more likely to cause job stress than others.

Of all cultures, the target culture is most likely to cause negative job stress, mainly because its

members are required to aggressively achieve goals at all costs. At the same time there are no

adequate job resources to act as a buffer against these demands. Pay and career opportunities

only indirectly support the members of this culture to deal with these demands.

 36  

After the target culture, job stress is most likely to emerge in the functional culture, because

of its strict, efficiency-focused character. Also here, the job resources only indirectly counter

the job demands. Performance feedback, role clarity and training are good job resources on

itself, but in this none of them directly acts as a buffer for the job demands in the functional

culture. In both the innovation culture and the pack culture, it can be seen that this is the case.

Therefore, job stress is less likely to emerge in these two cultures. In the innovation culture,

risk and ambiguity stressors are buffered by supervisor and co-worker support. This support

decreases the chance of job stress to emerge, as members are supported in the risks they take

and the uncertainty they face. In the pack culture, job security, and trust and support serve as

buffers for both responsibility and satisfying the goals of the leader. Therefore, the target

culture and the functional culture have higher job demands, while the lower job demands of

the innovation culture and the pack culture can serve as job resources as well.

However, up until now, an important element of the emergence of job stress has been

excluded from the analysis: personality. As Nixon (1974) has shown that the hump differs for

everyone, personality (amongst others) determines whether negative job stress is or is not

evident for the individual. Therefore, the way in which personality influences the relationship

between organizational culture and job stress will be discussed in the next paragraph.

5.3 The Micro Level Now that both job demands and job resources have been analyzed, the last part of the

mismatch will be discussed: personality and, therefore, also capabilities. In paragraph 4.3,

Holland’s (1985) person-job fit has been presented, which resulted in six personality types

and their most (and least) congruent jobs. Although this person-job fit can be seen as

important in the investigation of the influence of organizational culture on job stress, this

section will present the macro level fit; the fit between the person and the organization as a

whole. In order to do so, the Big Five Personality Traits that have been discussed in chapter

four will be connected to organizational culture.

5.3.1 The Connection of the Big Five with Organizational Culture According to Judge and Cable (1997), in general, persons seek out the organizations that are

congruent with their personalities. This is because employment forms an important part of the

individual’s lives. As a result, individuals are concerned with organization values and culture.

Furthermore, it is an expression of values. The results of Judge and Cable’s (1997) research

on the connection between the Big Five and organizational culture have been presented in

table 3. Additionally, in this table the related cultures from the Four Culture Typology have

been added. Additionally, Judge and Cable’s results show that (‘apart’ from personality)

“men preferred innovative and decisive cultures, women preferred detail-oriented cultures,

business majors preferred innovative and aggressive cultures, engineering majors preferred

37  

 

supportive but disliked outcome-oriented cultures, and White job seekers preferred decisive

cultures” (Judge & Cable, 1997, p. 380).

It is important to note, although the terminology of the cultures Judge and Cable (1997) have

distinguished seems to correspond with the aforementioned concepts, large differences do

exist in their meaning. Therefore, in order to prevent confusion, the eight factors representing

organizational culture will be presented briefly.

Innovation is seen as the “degree to which individuals prefer organizations that promote risk

taking, experimentation and that fail to emphasize being careful, stable or secure” (Judge &

Cable, 1997, p. 363). From this definition it shows that the innovation culture has

characteristics of both the target culture (e.g. risk-taking) and the innovation culture (e.g.

experimentation).

Attention to detail is described as the “degree to which individuals prefer cultures that are

analytical, attend to details, and are precise” (Judge & Cable, 1997, p. 363). This shows

similarities with the orderly, standardized functional culture (e.g. analytics and precision).

Outcome orientation is “the degree to which individuals prefer cultures that are achievement-

oriented, are demanding and results-oriented and promote high expectations” (Judge & Cable,

1997, p. 363). This achievement-oriented focus can be connected with the target culture.

Aggressiveness is defined as the “degree to which individuals prefer organizations that

emphasize aggressiveness, competition and opportunities” (Judge & Cable, 1997, p.363).

Also this culture can be related to the target-culture, as it refers to the same key elements.

Supportiveness deals with the “degree to which individuals prefer organizations that are

supportive, promote sharing information and praise good performance” (Judge & Cable,

1997, p. 363). Here, elements of both the pack culture (e.g. supportiveness) and the

innovation culture can be found (e.g. sharing information and praising good performance).

Emphasis on rewards refers to the “degree to which individuals prefer organizations that

value high pay for performance and professional growth” (Judge & Cable, 1997, p. 363). This

matches with the pay cognitive job resource of the target culture.

Team orientation covers the “degree to which individuals prefer cultures that are team-

oriented and promote collaboration” (Judge & Cable, 1997, p. 363). This can be connected

the most to the innovation culture, as this culture is also characterized by a focus on

collaboration.

The last factor, decisiveness, is defined as the “degree to which individuals prefer

organizations that value decisiveness, predictability, and low conflict” (Judge & Cable, 1997,

p.363). This culture largely matches multiple cultures of the Four Culture Typology. Judge

and Cable (1997) explain this by stating that decisiveness was the weakest extracted factors.

This might be the case, as the values that comprise this factor can be seen as quite diverse.

In table 3, the Big Five Personality Traits and Judge and Cable’s (1997) organizational

 38  

cultures have been connected to the Four Culture Typology.

Table 3: The Big Five connected to organizational culture (partly adapted from

Judge & Cable (1997)) Big  Five  Dimension  

Score  (High/  Low)  

Congruent  Organizational  Culture(s)  

Incongruent  Culture(s)    

Congruent  Four  Culture  Typology(s)  

Incongruent  Four  Culture  Typology(s)  

Extraversion   High   Aggressive  &  team-­‐oriented  organizational  cultures  

Supportive  organizational  cultures  

Target  Culture  &  Innovation  Culture  

Pack  Culture  

Emotional  stability  

Low   -­‐   Innovative  &  decisive  organizational  cultures  

-­‐   Target  Culture    

Agreeableness   High   Supportive  &  team-­‐oriented  organizational  cultures  

Aggressive,  outcome-­‐oriented  &  decisive  organizational  cultures  

Innovation  Culture  &  Pack  Culture  

Target  Culture    

Conscien-­‐tiousness  

High   Detail,  outcome    and  rewards-­‐oriented  organizational  cultures  

Innovative  organizational  cultures  

Functional  Culture  &  Target  Culture  

Innovation  Culture  

Openness  to  Experience  

High   Innovative  organizational  cultures  

Detail-­‐  &  team-­‐oriented  organizational  cultures  

Innovation  Culture  &  Target  Culture  

Functional  Culture  &  Pack  Culture  

From table 3, it can be seen that extraverted persons fit best in either the target culture or the

innovation culture. This might be because of the active and assertive nature of these persons,

which are required traits by both organizational cultures. On the other hand, the pack culture

is incongruent with this personality trait, as an active and assertive person is likely to function

well in a team setting, but will have more difficulties with the respectful and cohesive focus

of the pack culture.

Neurotic persons, the opposite of low emotional stability (also used by some researchers

instead of this label), are not best of in one specific culture, but better avoid target cultures. It

is likely that this is due to the aggressive, result-oriented emphasis of this culture, which

emotionally instable persons do not prefer, as this trait is characterized by anxiety, worries

and insecurity. Furthermore, the impersonal characteristics of the target culture are not

congruent with the low emotional stability trait.

39  

 

Agreeable persons fit best in the innovation culture and the pack culture. This is due to

agreeable persons being (amongst others) cooperative, flexible and tolerant, which are

characteristics that match with both the innovation as well as the pack culture. These

employee-focused cultures focus on cooperation and helping each other and, therefore, are

likely to be preferred by persons scoring high on the agreeableness dimension. On the other

hand, agreeable persons do not like being in target culture or a functional culture, as these

cultures lack the aforementioned characteristics. These cultures are result-oriented, thereby

focusing on achieving goals in either a decentralized (target culture) or centralized (functional

culture) manner.

Conscientious persons do fit in the target culture, but will fit even better in the functional

culture, as these persons are careful, orderly, organized, responsible and achievement-

oriented. These characteristics correspond with the goal-oriented functional culture, which is

known for its focus on rules and procedures in order to achieve these goals. As a result, these

persons are incongruent with the innovation culture, as this culture is not focused on these

characteristics. The innovation culture is dynamic, flexible and decentralized as opposed to

the careful and orderly conscientious person.

Openness to experience matches the innovation culture and the target culture the most, as

these cultures are focused on being broad-minded and also value creativity. Both cultures

value employees coming up with original solutions, which is a characteristic for persons

scoring high on this personality trait. However, the functional culture and the pack culture are

incongruent with this personality trait, as they do not share these values. As these cultures are

more centralized, individuals have more difficulties in utilizing their imagination, originality

and intelligence. Compared to the innovation and target culture, the pack and functional

culture offer their members less job autonomy, which is something persons scoring high on

openness to experience need.

Now that it is clear which personality traits do or do not fit a specific organizational culture,

the influence of personality on the relation between organizational culture and job stress will

be discussed in the next paragraph.

5.3.2 Personality and Job Stress In paragraph 3.2, it was shown that stressors with severe effects for one person can have little

effect on others. Therefore, the point where good stress turns into distress differs per person.

Although the target culture and the functional culture have higher job demands that are more

difficult to buffer with job resources, the likelihood of job stress to emerge can be partially

offset by personality. On the other hand, it is possible for job stress to emerge when an

incongruent personality is put into the less stressful demands of the innovation and the pack

culture. In order to clarify these relations, figure 12 has been developed.

 40  

Figure 12: The Big Five Personality Traits connected to The Four Culture Typology

This figure shows the role of personality in the likelihood of job stress to emerge. The

personality traits denoted in green indicate fit between personality and culture and, therefore,

a decreased likelihood of negative job stress because of better resource utilization. The

personality traits denoted in red indicate a misfit between personality and culture, thereby an

increase in the likelihood of negative job stress to emerge.

In the target culture, extraverted and conscientious persons that are open to experience are

less likely to experience job stress, as paragraph 5.3.1 has shown that these personality traits

fit with the characteristics of the target culture. On the other hand, it is likely for job stress to

emerge in the target culture by emotionally unstable of agreeable persons, as in this case there

is no fit between personality and culture.

Conscientious individuals are less likely to experience job stress in the functional culture, as

this personality trait fits with the rules and procedures-directed nature of this culture.

Therefore, it can be seen that its counterpart, openness to experience, is likely to experience

job stress in this culture. Because persons that are open to experience are not able to utilize

their own resources, namely their creativity, originality and imagination, they are less able to

utilize the job resources of the functional culture as well. As a result, job demands are less

buffered, thereby increasing the likelihood of job stress to emerge.

41  

 

The culture in which persons that are open to experience can utilize their competencies is the

innovation cultures. The active, but supportive characteristics of this culture, result in fit with

both extraverted and agreeable persons. As a result, persons that score high on openness to

experience, extraversion and agreeableness are less likely to experience job stress in this

organizational culture. Therefore, the counterpart of openness to experience,

conscientiousness is more likely to experience job stress. The dynamic and creative

innovation culture does not fit with the precise and orderly conscientious person, which

results in a higher likelihood of experiencing job stress.

Supportive persons fit in a supportive organizational culture. As a result, agreeable persons fit

in the pack culture, as trusting and cooperative persons will feel at ease in a culture that offers

trust and support. Therefore, individuals scoring high in this personality trait are less likely to

experience job stress in the pack culture. However, its centralized nature result in less fit with

extraverted persons and persons that are open to experience. Active, outgoing, creative and

original persons are more restricted in this culture to utilize their competencies, which results

in an increased likelihood of the emergence of job stress.

It can be seen that not all personality traits can be assigned as either positively or negatively

influencing the chance of job stress. As a result, it is not possible to argue whether, for

example, conscientiousness increases or decreases the likelihood of job stress to emerge in the

pack culture. Therefore, the job demands-job resources trade-off that has been presented in

paragraph 5.2.2 – 5.2.5 most accurately describes the emergence of job stress in this case. In

all other cases, it can be seen that when personality and organizational culture fit, job

resources will be utilized better, thereby resulting in decreased job stress by influencing the

relation between organizational culture and job stress.

 VI. CONCLUSION

This thesis has sought to investigate the influence of organizational culture on job stress and

the way in personality influences this relationship. In order to answer the research question,

five sub questions have been developed, which have been answered in the theory chapters.

Schein (2004) has shown that organizational culture consists of a pattern of shared basic

assumptions that are to be taught to new members as the correct way in which one should

perceive, think and feel. Additionally, three levels of organizational culture have been

identified: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions.

Three models of organizational culture have been presented: the competing values framework

of Quin and Rohrbaugh (1983), the four culture types of Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003)

and Hofstede’s (2001) six dimensions to characterize organizational culture.

Demands made upon the adaptive capabilities of mind and body are called stress. This stress

on itself is not immediately negative, as acceptable levels of stress can even result in higher

 42  

productivity. It is the point where this acceptable stress turns into distress when negative

stress begins. At this point (and onwards), there is a mismatch between the job demands and

the job resources and capabilities of the individual. This has been presented in the job

demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006) and the related DISC-model of de

Jonge et al. (2008). War’s vitamin model showed that increase of specific job resources at a

certain point either leads to no further increase or even a decrease of the employee’s well

being.

Chapter four showed, contrary to expectations, personality is difficult to define. However, it

is agreed upon that personality consists of characteristic patterns of thought, emotion and

behavior, which are evident at both the psychological and physiological level. In order to

distinguish between personalities, the Big Five Personality Traits have been presented.

Additionally, Holland’s person-job fit model has been discussed.

After answering the sub questions, a three-level analysis has been conducted. At the macro

level, the similarities and differences between the organizational culture models have been

discussed. All models focus on organizational structure and employee or task orientation.

Furthermore, similarities between most culture types could be identified. By developing new

axes, employee-focused versus results focused and centralized versus decentralized, four new

cultures have been created: the target culture, the functional culture, the innovation culture

and the pack culture.

The meso level presented the connection of job demands and job resources to the Four

Culture Typology. From this connection, it can be concluded that the target culture and the

functional culture have high job demands that are not directly buffered by job resources.

Achieving goals at all costs, the most important job demand of the target culture, is

impossible to directly buffer with job resources, which results in this culture being vulnerable

for job stress. Additionally, it is difficult to buffer the job demands in the functional culture,

which results in an increased likelihood of job stress to emerge in this organizational culture.

A job resource such as supervisor and co-worker support in the innovation culture results in

direct buffering of the ambiguity that results from autonomous risk-taking. Job security,

support and trust directly buffer the responsibility demands of the pack culture. As a result,

compared to the target culture and the functional culture, job stress is less likely to emerge in

the innovation culture and the pack culture.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the target culture and the functional culture have job

demands that are difficult to buffer by the culture’s job resources. However, the extent to

which job resources are utilized and job demands are experienced is determined by

personality, which forms the micro level of the analysis. By connecting the Big Five

Personality Traits to organizational culture, it can be seen that extraverted, conscientious

persons that are open to experience fit with the target culture, which results in better job

43  

 

resource utilization and a decreased negative experience of the job demands of this culture.

As a result, it is less likely for job stress to be experienced. On the other hand, emotionally

unstable and agreeable persons are less congruent with this culture, which results in lowed

resource utilization and an increased negative experience of the target culture’s job demands.

In this case, the likelihood for job stress to be experienced increases as there is a mismatch

between personality, job resources and job demands.

Conscientious persons fit in the target culture, which decreases the potential mismatch

between job demands and job resources in this culture. As a result, conscientious persons are

less likely to experience job stress in this culture compared to persons scoring high on the

other personality traits. However, for persons that are open to experience the mismatch

between personality, organizational culture and job stress is enlarged, as this personality trait

does not fit the functional culture. Therefore, these persons are more likely to experience job

stress in this organizational culture

Extraverted and agreeable persons that are open to experience fit in the innovation culture,

thereby creating a match between personality, organizational culture and job stress. As a

result, it is less likely for persons scoring high on these personality traits to experience job

stress in the innovation culture, as job resources are utilized in the best manner to buffer the

job demands of this culture. However, a mismatch is created when conscientious persons are

present in this culture. Therefore, it is likely for a conscientious person to experience job

stress in the innovation culture, as this personality trait does not help in utilizing the job

resources, while it increases the negative experience of the job demands.

In the pack culture, a match is created when agreeable persons enter this culture. As this

personality trait corresponds with the organizational culture, the job resources are used in the

best manner, while the negative effects of the job demands are decreased. On the other hand,

extraverted persons that are open to experience are more likely to experience job stress in this

culture as the pack culture does not allow these persons to take full advantage of their

originality and creativity, thereby creating a mismatch between these personality traits and the

organizational culture.

With the help of this acquired and applied knowledge it is now possible to answer the

research question of this thesis. It can be seen that the different organizational cultures have

different job demands and different job resources for their employees. When there is a

mismatch between the job demands, job resources and capabilities of the employee, it is

likely that job stress is experienced. In the previous part, it has been concluded job stress is

most likely to be experienced in the target culture, followed by the functional culture and,

later, the pack culture and the innovation culture. However, personality-culture fit results in

less negative experience of the culture’s job demands, while job resources are utilized in the

 44  

best manner. As a result, this fit results in a decreased likelihood of job stress to be

experienced.

6.1 Limitations and Future Research  Throughout the paper, several models of organizational culture, job stress and personality

have been presented. Although they all discuss different topics, they have one characteristic

in common: all these models are general in nature. All organizational cultures (including the

Four Culture Typology) try to identify organizational cultures by developing axes, which

enable the aforementioned distinction between different cultures. From a theoretical point of

view, this may have its advantages, as general models are beneficial for theory development.

However, from a practical point of view, it is difficult to even approach reality by proposing

these general models. Real life organizations have to deal with a significant amount of

complex variables, which are not being taken into consideration by these models. On the

other hand, general models have as an advantage that they can be interpreted by experienced

practitioners in order to be applicable in practical situations. This will be discussed in

paragraph 6.3. In order to build the bridge between theory and practice, the Four Culture

Typology needs to be empirically tested to see if these desk research results can be supported.

In the Four Culture Typology it is presupposed that organizations exactly fit a specific

organizational culture type. The four short business examples have shown that this is

possible. However, not every organization perfectly fits into one of the four cultures. It is

possible, for example, for an organization to show characteristics of multiple organizational

cultures. If a company is decentralized and both employee-focused as well as goal-focused, it

could be possible that company employs a culture that is somewhere between the target

culture and the innovation culture.

Next to this person-organization fit, which is connected to job stress, an attempt has been

made to connect Holland’s person-job fit to the Four Culture Typology. As can be seen in

paragraph 4.3, Holland’s argument is that there are six personality types and these types fit

best with their congruent jobs. As a result, investigative persons fit best in investigative jobs,

social persons in social jobs, and so on. The six personality types are: realistic, investigative,

social, conventional, enterprising and artistic. However, these personality types are that

broadly defined that they fit all organizational cultures and none specific culture at the same

time. For example, investigative persons are described as thinkers that prefer organizing and

understanding. Their personality can be characterized as being original, analytical

independent and curious. Holland states being a news reporter, economist or mathematician

are examples of congruent occupations for this personality type. As a result, this description

fits the innovation culture, because of the personality characteristic of being original.

Furthermore, it also fits the analytical characteristic of the functional culture. Additionally,

independency would fit the target culture. Although these characteristics and occupations

45  

 

show some similarities, they are that broadly defined and dissimilar that it has been

impossible to connect Holland’s personality types meaningfully to the organizational cultures.

Although the short business cases have been internationally oriented, this thesis has not

presented an international comparison between organizational cultures, as this has not been

possible due to time and space limitations. Therefore, another suggestion for future research

would be to empirically test the model internationally to see, for example, to which extent the

organizational cultures are represented by specific counties. This comparison can, for

example, be conducted along values that are embodied by all cultures: universal values.

Schwartz (1994) has investigated over forty-four countries, which has resulted in the

development of ten universal values: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-

direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and security. These ten universal

values can help in an international comparison of the newly developed organizational

cultures.

6.2 Theoretical Implications  This thesis has exploited three streams of literature: theory related to organizational culture,

theory related to job stress and theory related to personality. By connecting the presented

theories in the aforementioned fields, the possibility emerged for drawing conclusions

regarding the influence of organizational culture on job stress. This thesis has shown that it is

possible to develop a new model of organizational culture by combining three dominant

models in the field of organizational culture. Hereby, it can be concluded that the existing

models have many similarities. This could imply that when different axes will be developed,

this might lead to different organizational cultures, thus, different results. Additionally, it has

been shown that it is possible to connect this newly developed model to job demands and job

resources that have been presented in the models in the job stress field. Furthermore,

connecting personality to both organizational culture and job stress has shown to be possible.

As a result, it can be concluded the aforementioned contributions of this thesis are

multidisciplinary in nature, as they contribute to multiple fields. Therefore, it can be

concluded that the main theoretical implications are the contribution of a new model of

organizational culture and the portrayed relationship between the concepts organizational

culture, job stress and personality, which has led to the answer of this thesis’ research

question.

6.3 Practical Implications  The introduction of this thesis has shown the key role of job stress in today’s business

environment. It has been shown in the U.S., one third of all employees are reporting high

levels of job stress and the example of General Electric indicated even result-oriented

organizations recognize negative stress reduces productivity. Therefore, for organizations it is

 46  

useful to know what job stress is, how it emerges and how it can be prevented. This paper

helps organizations in finding out to which culture type they relate, which results in increased

awareness of the job demands that are imposed on their employees. Furthermore,

organizations can verify whether job resources are in place to buffer against the job demands,

while it can be assessed if the job resources adequately buffer the job demands.

Besides the contribution to the organization’s knowledge of its culture with the accompanied

job demands and job resources, an important practical implication of this thesis is the

possibility for organizations to determine whether a person is likely to experience job stress in

a specific organization. Judge and Cable (1997) argue, amongst others, the extraversion

personality trait is a trait that is clearly observable. As a result, by assessing the traits of the

organization’s employees to the identified culture in the Four Culture Typology,

organizations are able to see which personality traits are less likely to fit their organizational

culture, thereby increasing the possibility of negative job stress. Besides current employees,

this assessment of the likelihood of job stress can be extended to future employees as well.

Organizational recruiters can use the applicant’s personality traits to assess whether he or she

will fit the organizational culture, thus, whether the likelihood of job stress to be experienced

will increase or decrease. This implies recruiters can try to attract persons with specific

personality traits that match the organizational culture. This can even be done in early stages,

such as job openings, by describing the organizational culture and portraying a profile of the

ideal candidate. In this way, organizations are likely to achieve fit between their culture and

the personality of their employees, which results in a decreased likelihood of job stress to be

experienced.

47  

 

VII. REFERENCES Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2006). The Job Demands–Resources Model: State of the Art.

Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol. 22, pp. 309–328

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991) The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job

Performance: A Meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 44, pp. 1-26

Burton, R. M. and Obel, B. (2005). Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: The

Dynamics of Fit. New York: Springer

Businessweek (2006). 3M’s Seven Pillars of Innovation. Retrieved June 11, 2010

from:

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/may2006/id20060510_682823.htm

Businessweek (2007). Dispatches from the War on Stress. Retrieved April 4, 2010

from:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_32/b4045061.htm?campaign_id

=rss_null  Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (1997) Managing Workplace Stress. London: Sage

Publications

CNN (2010). Palin’s an ‘engaging person’, Biden says. Retrieved April 28, 2010

from:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/11/palins-an-engaging-person-biden-

says/?fbid=1GVF_6DBt4L

Corr, P.J. and Matthews, G. (2009). The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982) Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of

Corporate Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books

Fleeson, W. (2001). Towards a Structure- and Process-integrated View of Personality: Traits

as Density Distributions of States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Vol. 80, pp. 1011-1027

Fontana, D. (1989) Managing Stress. London: British Psychological Society and Routledge.

Funder, D. C. (1997). The personality puzzle. New York: W.W. Norton

Google (2010). The Google Culture. Retrieved April 3, 2010  

from:  

http://www.google.com/corporate/culture.html  

Gorden, G.G. (1984). Review: Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate

Life. The Academy of Management Review. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 365-366

Furlan (2002). Honda’s Philosophy. Retrieved June 11, 2010

from:

www.old.unimib.it/symphonya/artfurlaningl.pdf

 48  

Holland, J.L. (1985). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and

Work Environments. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

de Jonge, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1998). Job Characteristics and Employee Well-being: A T

Test of Warr’s Vitamin Model in Health Care Workers using Structural Equation

Modelling. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 19, pp. 387– 407

de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2003). The DISC model: Demand-induced Strain Compensation

Mechanisms in Job Stress. In Dollard, M.F., Winefield, H.R. & Winefield, A.H.

(Eds.), Occupational Stress in the Service Professions (pp. 43–74). London: Taylor &

Francis

de Jonge, J., Dormann, C. & van den Tooren, M. (2008). The Demand-induced Strain

Compensation Model: Renewed Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence.

In: Naswall, K., Hellgren, J. & Sverke, M. (Eds.). The Individual in the Changing

Working Life (pp. 67–87). Oxford: Cambridge University Press

Judge, T.A. & Cable, D.M. (1997). Applicant Personality, Organizational Culture and

Organization Attraction. Personal Psychology. Vol., No.2, pp. 359-394

Kincheloe, J. L. (2002). The Sign of the Burger: McDonald’s and the Culture of Power.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Leka, S., Griffiths, A. & Cox, T. (2004) Work Organizations and Stress. Protecting

Worker’s Health Series. Vol. 3, pp. 1-27

Lenssen, P. (2007). Paul Buchheit on Gmail, AdSense and More. Retrieved April 3rd,

2010 from:

http://www.blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-07-16-n55.html

Merriam-Webster (2010). McJob. Retrieved June 11, 2010 from:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mcjob

Quinn, C. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a

Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis. Management Science. Vol.

29, No. 3, pp. 336-377.  

Robbins (2000). Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Sauter (2007). Workplace Stress. Retrieved April 2nd, 2010, from  

http://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/blog/nsb120307_stress.html  

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human

Values?.Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 19 - 45

Schuler, R. (1989) Definition and Conceptualization of Stress in Organizations.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 184 - 215

Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron Ethics (Or: Culture Matters More Than

Codes). Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 45, pp. 243 - 256.

49  

 

The American Institute of Stress (2004). Job Stress. Retrieved April 3rd, 2010, from  

http://www.stress.org/job.htm  Trompenaars, F. & Woolliams, P. (2003). Business Across Cultures. Cornwall: T.J.

International