which would require the managers to select a random sample of raters for each employee
(Pollack & Pollack, 1996).
In addition, with respect to the organizational culture measurement, there are two
perspectives recommending different methods of measurement. The emic measurement
tradition advocates qualitative, rich methods of measurement capturing the native point of
view (Denison, 1996), while the etic perspective promotes quantitative measurement.
Here, I adopted the etic perspective and I measured culture with a survey instrument. The
benefit of this measurement is that it allows the researcher to capture culture across many
different organizations (as in this case) and facilitates generalizability, while the emic
perspective usually suits better research conducted in a few organizations. However, the
drawback of the quantitative approach is that it imposes a theoretical framework on
organizational culture but forsakes the in-depth understanding of each individual culture
as well as the opportunity to develop new theory.On the other hand, while a qualitative
approach fosters the in-depth understanding of unique processes within each
organization, it may also limit the generalizability of findings obtained within each to a
different set of organizations. Therefore, the benefits of using a theoretically driven
quantitative approach seemed to outweigh the costs.
Finally, the focus on individual cognitive perceptions may be construed as a
limitation. Specifically, focusing on individual perceptions does not shed light on
understanding group processes, and how they are influenced by culture. It is however,
useful, for making inferences on the individual level that may in the future be further
researched and generalized to the group level.