許多的文獻和研究都用了這兩個建構
在工安方面，能夠把安全"文化"與安全"氣候"這兩個概念分得清楚的，恐怕不多
(連我自己也搞不太清楚)
感謝時代的進步，可以直接查有水準期刊上面，學者的回顧與整理
以下轉載第二手文獻資料上的說明
Title：Estimating the impact of Denison
Author：Farah Asif
Source：Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 454–459
備註：
其實應該直接看Denison's (1996), “What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate?的這篇文章
Culture is a concept that “has been examined, poked at, pushed, rolled over, killed, revived, and reified ad infinitum” (Lonner, 1984 p.108).
Culture is a multidimensional concept and societal aspect that requires a context before culture can be understood (Gordon, 2009).
Climate is a concept defines that “a precise and widely shared definition of the climate construct does not exist, it is defined here as a shared and enduringmolar perception of the psychologically important aspects of the work environment.”
Hellriegel and Slocum (1974) explain organizational climate “is based on the assumption that individuals within a given subsystem or organization and at a given hierarchical level should have similar perceptions about their climate”
As a result more quantitative methods to study culture in organizations appear, releasing qualitative methods, which traditionally apply to understand aspects of culture in organizations. It presents organizational culture in the category of sociology and anthropology, and organizational climate in the territory of psychology.
而兩個概念分別在人類學、社會學與心理學方面有其嚴謹的操作型定義，被引渡到工安的領域後，更是讓人搞不清楚與各說各話(沒有一統天下的定義)
網路上人家的討論(英文)：
http://www.chrmglobal.com/Replies/1841/1/Organizational-Culture-and-Organizational-Climate.html
Dension 1996 的文章：
http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/bergman/denison1996.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33051900/Organizational-Culture-and-Organizational-Climate-Daniel-R-Denison
果然，自己程度太差+太懶 看不懂
也扯出質性與量性研究方法之間觀點差異
到最後，我還是搞不清楚應該採用"文化"亦或"氣候"
作者最後的結論真是發人深省：
不要這些名詞定義混淆與凌駕了 我們的首要任務=>暸解組織演化過程與進一步影響/改變組織社會情境。
沒有留言:
張貼留言