ICC (2) is a measure of the reliability group (i.e., organization-level) means
(Bliese, 2000) and was calculated with the following formula:
The ICC (2) values are .50, .50, .45, and .70 for clan, entrepreneurial, market, and
hierarchy cultures, respectively. The ICC (2) values were relatively low for the most part
may be partially attributed to the low number of respondents per organization.
The rwg values reflect the level of agreement among coworkers regarding levels of
culture. The median rwg value for clan culture was .55, median rwg value for
entrepreneurial culture was .58, the median rwg for market culture was equal to .70, and
finally, the rwg for hierarchy culture was equal to .58. Overall, these values suggest
presence of agreement to allow aggregation of the scales.
Roles and employee behaviors. There are alternative methods of measuring roles
available in the literature. Morrison (1994), for example, measured role perceptions by
asking individuals to assign respective outcome activities into one of two categories: 1)
activities that are an expected part of the job, and 2) activities, which are somewhat above
what is expected. Lam and colleagues (1999), on the other hand, used a 5-point Likert
scale to determine if an activity is more in-role or more extra-role. They asked
respondents to rate the degree to which they agreed that each activity is an expected part
of the role. Hofmann and colleagues (2003) used a 5-point Likert scale anchored so that 1
meant that an activity is an expected part of the job, while 5 stood for “definitely above
and beyond what is expected for my job” (p. 172).
I used a procedure similar to Hofmann and colleagues (2003) by asking
individuals to indicate on a Likert scale (1-7) whether an activity is extra-role or in-role.