X hits on this document





130 / 185

2002), the direct measure proved to have greater utility for my outcomes of interest.

Based on my results, I’d recommend that construct validation would be an important

aspect of using indirect measures of strength instead of assuming the meaning that they

carry. According to the correlation tables from two of the sub-samples I used, the

standard deviations were mostly not significantly related to the direct measures of

strength (correlations ranging from .01 to -.28).

Only in the case of market culture and hierarchy culture, the standard deviations

were negatively related to the respective measures of strength (-.28, p< .05 & -.24, p<

.05), suggesting that the level of disagreement on market culture had a negative

association with a direct measure of culture strength on the same dimension. However,

there is also a positive association between the standard deviation on entrepreneurial

culture and entrepreneurial culture strength (.29, p< .05), in contrast to what would be

theoretically expected. There may be several theoretically viable explanations of the

observed relationships. Specifically, it is possible that the high standard deviation on

entrepreneurial culture reflects the presence of very high and very low scores on

entrepreneurial culture. Hypothetically, if the focal employees who provided the direct

measure of strength were consistently in agreement with the coworkers who provided the

higher ratings on entrepreneurial culture, this tendency would be reflected in a positive

correlation between the standard deviation and the direct measure of strength. In addition,

the low number of coworkers who provided ratings of culture resulted in lower reliability

of their ratings.

Given the overall inconsistency in the findings with respect to strength as a

standard deviation and strength as agreement, it seems warranted for future research in


Document info
Document views308
Page views308
Page last viewedMon Oct 24 12:40:37 UTC 2016