The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
TPM
14,3/4
118
Received November 2007
Accepted March 2008
Team Performance Management
Vol. 14 No. 3/4, 2008
pp. 118-133
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590810883406
Leadership team performance
management: the case of
BELRON
Elizabeth Houldsworth
Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, UK, and
Simon Machin
BELRON, Old Deer Park, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a case study around an approach to team
performance management being deployed within the BELRON group of companies. The device being
deployed is the climate measure (OCSII), which is being used within the organisation as an indicator of
leadership capability. Although the results of climate surveys may be reported at both team and
individual levels, this paper seeks to focus on team climate and how this may be linked to changes in
business performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The performance management approach has been aligned to a
strategic intent, as championed by the CEO, to focus on leadership development as a key enabler of
BELRON’s future success. The paper considers the deployment of the climate tool within the Top
Teams of three different business units and this is linked to available information relating to
performance.
Findings – The paper finds that, within BELRON, there is a belief that the emphasis on climate has
been a major contributor to its enhanced business performance over recent years. The paper presents
information from three BELRON contexts where changes in climate would appear to precede
improvements in business performance. However, despite these examples, i.e. where “high performing
climates” appear to be linked with profitability, or other measures of business performance, this is not
seen to be universal within the company.
Research limitations/implications – The work reported has limitations in that it focuses on only
three positive examples of a possible climate/performance link at BELRON.
Practical implications – The paper makes a key contribution for practitioners, particularly HR, OD
professionals and consultants as well as any senior manager concerned with managing performance.
The climate survey being deployed in this context (the OCSII) is a tool which has been in use since the
1960s, with many claims made about its links to performance. However, the vast majority of the work
has been conducted in a consultancy setting without much coverage in academic literatures.
Originality/value – The paper describes for the reader how the OSCII tool may be deployed to
support team performance management. It then describes how the instrument has been deployed
within the Top Teams of three business units within BELRON.
Keywords Performance management, United Kingdom, Leadership
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Top management teams (TMTs) have long been studied as an important determinant
of corporate success (Barrick et al., 2007). These authors cite a number of studies but
also suggest that research documenting the impact of TMT processes on
organisational performance has been slow to accumulate. At the individual level
numerous studies, e.g. Guest et al. (2000) for the UK’s Chartered Institute of Personnel The case of
and Development have begun to suggest that the line manager and his or her BELRON
leadership style is a key criterion in driving the “employee experience” (or satisfaction)
and as a result his or her motivation and propensity to stay. From the HRM literatures
the possible link of this to business performance has been suggested by many authors
over the years, including Litwin and Stringer (1968), Purcell et al. (2003) and similarly
Heskett et al. (1994) and Pugh et al. (2002). In examining organisational level outcomes, 119
levels of satisfaction must distinguish between interactions at the dyadic versus team
level (Johnston et al., 2007). This paper looks at one case study organisation where a
structured approach to team performance management has been deployed, that seeks
to build leadership capability by use of an instrument that allows for it to be measured
and reported at both an individual and team level.

Conceptual background
Nurses, doctors, teachers and airport security officers have in common with City “high
fliers” the fact that over the past decade there has been an increasing movement
towards managing and measuring their performance. This is apparent in UK politics,
with New Labour’s attempts since 1997 to raise standards, modernise government,
introduce league tables, etc. Pollitt (2005) tells us that in North West Europe,
performance measurement approaches of this type have become almost universal and
well established in practice. Performance management he reports as growing steadily,
but varying in form and force between different countries and tasks.
At the same time as the evolution in performance management the context within
which it has operated has also changed. The management of performance has become
more and more in the public eye with an emphasis upon raising standards in both the
private and public sectors and moves towards managing individual performance
across all roles. In terms of human resource management this has been coupled with a
drive for results, linking HR contribution to the bottom line, all of which has been
reflected in a more measurement-based culture.
In terms of managing performance a CIPD Research report (Guest et al., 2000) poses
the question that if we are looking at performance – what performance exactly should
we be looking at? Most research has focused on measures such as productivity or
financial results. Researchers in the US, particularly Huselid et al. (1997), are currently
working on the refinement of such measures, but differences in accounting practices
between the UK and the US make comparisons difficult. If we want to understand why
HRM contributes to performance surely we also need to measure the HRM outcomes of
employee attitudes and behaviour; internal performance, such as productivity and
quality of goods and services and external indicators such as sales and financial
performance.
In a study by the IPD (Richardson and Thompson, 1999) reports that there are in the
region of 30 empirical studies that have sought to address the relationship between HR
practices and business performance. This fieldwork has been pioneered in the USA and
the bulk of the articles do report studies there, but there are now a growing number in
the UK; see for example Richardson and Thompson (1999) for an account.
Pfeffer (1995) cites evidence that HR practices can raise shareholder value by
between $20,000 and $40,000 per employee. A study by Huselid (1995) suggested that
the “market value per employee” was strongly correlated with the sophistication of the
TPM HR practices adopted. Similarly in the UK, although they did not put a sum to it,
14,3/4 Patterson et al. (1997) found changes in profitability among a panel of over 60 small to
medium sized manufacturing businesses correlated with the adoption of certain HR
practices.
However, although it is possible to make a theoretical case for why performance
management is an appropriate means to help organisations to manage their employee
120 asset, we also acknowledge that as a process it is not without its critics. For example,
Townley (1993, 1994) and Winstanley and Stuart-Smith (1996) have suggested that it
should be perceived as a crude device for dividing and controlling with knock-on
negative effects on employee motivation.
Thus we can see two “faces” to performance management: one, a possible force for
good – helping organisations to build clarity and support mechanisms for employees
as they work towards shared goals; and another, as parodied in statements and films
entitled “the dreaded appraisal” as a de-motivating or an irrelevant process
(Houldsworth and Jirasinghe, 2006). When we consider the former, it is usually via the
concept of “discretionary effort” which is seen to add to motivation and engagement,
and hence business performance.
Purcell et al. (2003) capture this when they say “better performance comes about
when people are stimulated to do their jobs better: becoming better at looking after
customers, better at solving problems and better at working with colleagues. This is
discretionary behaviour in the sense that employees give and can take away
co-operation and effort to ‘go the extra mile’ once they have met the minimum
standards of performance” (p. 15). Their model describes the interplay between HR
policy areas and their impact on ability, motivation and opportunity, whilst also
stressing the key role of line managers in managing motivation. This is a key
contribution of the research into the “black box” as it highlights that line managers are
crucial in making a difference to business performance. Purcell et al. (2003) describe
how, although many surveys have shown over the years that good people management
brings benefits, little is actually known about why. They point out that, when we
consider excellent firms that have enjoyed a long-term competitive advantage it is
often hard to find out why they are so good.
This paper builds on this theme but it suggests how an instrument may be used to
“measure” how motivating it is to work with a particular work unit for a particular top
management team; the instrument being the OCSII.

Background to climate
Litwin and Stringer in their early seminal work (1968) define climate as “a set of
measurable properties of work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the
people who live and work in this environment and assumed to influence their
motivation and behaviour” (p. 1). It is usually seen to be different to culture and more
quantitative and measurable in how it is understood and interpreted (Denison, 1996, p.
632) (see Table I).
Climate research has been plagued with issues around sample size and the unit of
analysis, but these concerns have not stopped climate becoming well-established in
applied settings (Parker et al., 2003). Our example deals with an approach rolled out by
one global consultancy in their practice of leadership development.
Climate and the impact on performance The case of
Litwin and Stringer (1968) claimed that climate has an impact on performance – that is BELRON
to say that if all other things were equal (in terms of competition, staff, service or
product), then climate (i.e. what it feels like to work here) would impact on motivation
to such an extent that discretionary effort would be leveraged (or would not under a
negative climate). The message has been more recently told by Goleman (2000) in his
article on emotional intelligence, climate and managerial style, and this too refers to a 121
causal link.
However, in truth there is a lack of substantial published evidence to support this
claim on an ongoing basis. Litwin and Stringer worked at Harvard and had
associations with the McBer consultancy firm associated with David McClelland.
McBer and its heritage (such as climate) were amalgamated into HayGroup in 1985,
who continue to use the instrument extensively to support leadership development and
organisational improvement programmes. The climate tool they use is the OCSII, an
updated version of the first survey produced by George Litwin and Robert Stringer,
copyrighted by them in 1967 and 1969 and later revised in 1975 and 1990.
HayGroup have themselves written a review of nearly 35 years of “consulting
research” (up to October 2002) (Anderson and Zhu, 2002), which has clarified the link
between organisational climate and performance. Their article suggests that
high-performance organisations have climates with specific measurable
characteristics. Work within Hay Group suggests that organisational climate can
directly account for up to 30 per cent of the variance in key business performance
measures (see Watkin and Hubbard, 2003, for a summary). It is also clear that some
organisations use climate as a proxy measure when performance is difficult to
quantify. When used in this way, climate assessments provide an invaluable profit and
loss statement on how well a company manages its people, as well as the individual
contribution leaders make to that statement (Watkin and Hubbard, 2003). Some of the
examples they cite are described in the following:
(1) Income and the organisational climate dimensions – in a multinational
petrochemical firm:
.
Number of employees undertaking climate: 350.
.
Correlation of climate with net operating income: 62 per cent (0.79).
.
Match between operating units on climate and financial performance: Rank
ordering coincided.

Differences Culture literature Climate literature

Epistemology Contextualised and idiographic Comparative and nomothetic

Point of view Emic (native point of view) Etic (researcher’s viewpoint)
Methodology Qualitative field observation Quantitative survey data
Level of analysis Underlying values and assumptions Surface-level manifestations Table I.
Temporal orientation Historical evolution A historical snapshot Contrasting
Theoretical foundations Social construction: critical theory Lewinian field theory organisational culture
Discipline Sociology and anthropology Psychology and organisational
climate – research
Source: Denison, 1996 perspectives
TPM (2) Leadership for the twenty-first century: life insurance leadership study into
14,3/4 successful CEOs in insurance:
.
Number of employees undertaking climate: 19 CEOs – split into two groups
of outstanding and good performers.
.
Correlation between climate data and profitability: Total climate correlated
strongly with profit (r ¼ 0:68, n ¼ 16, p ¼ 0:025), accounting for nearly 50
122 per cent of the variation between the lower and higher performing groups.
.
Match between operating units on climate and financial performance: 69 per
cent accurate in sorting organisations into high and lower performers based
on four years of revenue growth.
(3) A study on organisational climate and its relationship with profits:
.
Number of employees undertaking climate: correlation between changes in
climate and per cent of change in gross operating profit.
.
Managers in 16 hotels in 1997 and in 1998: increase in climate was found to
be strongly correlated with increase in profit (n ¼ 16, r ¼ 0:573), 33 per cent
of the variation being accounted for by climate differences.
(4) Managing directors study linking climate and performance:
.
Number of employees undertaking climate: relationship between climate and
profit leadership.
.
In total, 33 managing directors, large technology services and
manufacturing organisation: total climate correlated highly with both
gross margin (r ¼ 0:67, n ¼ 10, p , 0:05) and profit margin before taxes
and interest (r ¼ 0:70, n ¼ 10, p , 0:05). Climate differences accounted for
nearly 49 per cent of the variation in profit.
(5) Bonus payments and the organisational climate dimensions:
.
Number of employees undertaking climate: relationship between climate at
beginning of year and achievement of high bonus – linked to achievement of
financial targets.
.
Climates of 91 executives in a multinational food and beverage organisation:
it was found that executives with better climates at the beginning of the year
had better financial performance and therefore received higher bonus
payouts (r ¼ 0:34, n ¼ 91, p ¼ 0:01)..

The authors of this paper are aware that the OCSII has its critics, as lacking in validity
and not providing a consistent measurement device, see Sims and LaFollette (1975) or
Muchinsky (1976) and also Rogers et al. (1980). However as Patterson et al. (2005)
suggest such criticisms are not unusual in this area. Indeed, it is for this reason that
they produced a new climate measurement (the OCM), which they initially tested
across an impressive 6,869 employees in 55 organisations across the UK’s
manufacturing sector, finding a link with productivity and innovation (Patterson
et al., 2005).
Despite criticisms we have chosen to concentrate on the OCSII. Owing to its general
accessibility and its “research underpinnings” the OCSII has become an extremely
popular tool in management/leadership development. Indeed figures from HayGroup
tell us that 178,980 OCSII instruments have been administered globally. This figure is The case of
higher than the actual number of managers who have received climate data, as it BELRON
contains some re-assessments, but nevertheless it suggests a high level of practitioner
uptake. If one considers that each of these 178,980 will have required input from four to
six direct reports, the number of employees who have an awareness of the climate
approach becomes considerably higher.
The OCSII is a 47 item multi-rater survey designed to assess six climate dimensions 123
and it is based on Litwin’s original work which identified nine dimensions of climate:
structure, responsibility, reward, risk, warmth, support, standards, conflict and
identify. A number of studies suggested (Sims and LaFollette, 1975; Muchinsky, 1976)
that a six-factor structure would be more appropriate and indeed the instrument has
been revised to report against the six factors of: flexibility, responsibility, standards,
rewards, clarity and team commitment.

Climate dimension and definition

(1) Flexibility: Bureaucracy is minimized and innovation encouraged.
(2) Responsibility: There is sufficient autonomy and reasonable risk taking is
encouraged.
(3) Standards: Excellence is the standard and continual improvement is
encouraged.
(4) Rewards: Good performance is recognised and rewards/recognition are
performance based.
(5) Clarity: The work unit’s mission is clear and how roles relate to it are
understood.
(6) Team commitment: There is pride, dedication and cooperation among work unit
members.
Climate feedback is presented as illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows how climate data are presented. The survey is administered by
asking four to six direct reports of a manager to self-report in terms of what it feels like
to work within his/her specific work unit and also by recording how they would like it
to be in an ideal world. At the bottom of the chart are the six dimensions of climate, as
listed previously. Percentile scales are then shown at the sides of the chart and these
allow two points to be plotted. The first points reflect the level of flexibility or
responsibility reported by the individual completing the questionnaire – i.e. he or she
will have completed a series of questions from which items have been linked to provide
a snap-shot of the degree of “flexibility” present in the work unit of their immediate line
manager. The shaded areas on the chart reflect any gap which exists between the
“actual amount” of flexibility and that which is ideal. Climate therefore serves as a gap
assessment exercise. In the example above there is a large gap on responsibility with a
considerable one for flexibility and team commitment. These gaps provide the line
manager with an assessment of where to concentrate their own development plan. So
in this case it might be about delegating some important projects.
According to OSCII technical manual (2002), any gap over 20 percentile points is
deemed as significant in terms of producing a loss of discretionary effort (motivation)
on the part of raters. Dimensions for which there is a significant gap and the actual
TPM
14,3/4

124

Figure 1.
Illustration of climate
feedback

climate score is at or below the 35th percentile indicate potential issues – “while a
single low score may indicate relatively little need for that particular aspect of climate,
more than one low climate dimension is usually a sign of poor overall climate. Low
climate couple with a significant gap indicates an area that needs prompt attention”
(Anderson and Zhu (for HayGroup), 2002).

Unit of analysis in this study

As mentioned previously climate research has been plagued by issues over the unit of
analysis. Climate may be reported at both an organisational and individual team level.
Where it is reported at a team level a composite is produced which combines the
climate outputs for all individuals reporting to one team leader – or in the case of
BELRON’s top teams a composite of all climate outputs from all direct reports in the
Executive Team. Such “averages” have been criticised, for example Payne et al. (1976),
p. 48) who consider “whether the mean is an adequate and valid measure of the
organisation’s climate.” Although we acknowledge the argument made by writers such
as Gorman and Malloy (1972) and Payne and Mansfield (1973), for this paper it is the
“average” or composite view of climate as created by the Top Team which is our
concern – on the assumption that management teams may also be associated with the
business performance data for their unit.
Therefore to recap the approach adopted here, when we report organisational
climate in this case, we are reporting it at a level of leadership team within a business,
and thus we are in line with Dansereau and Alutto (1990), who tell us that
organisational climate relates to groups whose composition is determined a priori and
may correspond to various levels of aggregation ranging from the work group to the
entire organisation.
The case of BELRON The case of
This paper will now focus upon one organisation – BELRON. BELRON repairs and BELRON
fits vehicle glass and had sales of e911 million in 2001, rising to e2 billion in 2007. It
operates in 30 countries under a variety of brand names, for example in Europe under
Carglassw or Autoglassw and O’BrienTM in Australia. In 2007 it had 1,600 service
centres and 7,100 mobile vehicles, providing a service to 8 million customers and
employment for 19,500. 125
BELRON is an organisation with a very clear strategy around repairing, rather than
replacing, windscreens, and in order to achieve that strategy it has sought to build
relationships with insurance companies. It is these companies who generally meet the
cost of a repaired windscreen, following the payment of an excess by the motorist. Also
this is a business which is very operationally focused and for whom the culture is to
“measure everything.” Thus it is unsurprising that measures around the contribution
of people would also be required.
It is also an organisation that, most commentators would agree, has enjoyed healthy
growth in the last five years both in terms of sales revenue and also profitability. An
impressive growth in profits over the last five years has contributed to a 17 per cent
compound annual growth rate, achieved through a simple strategy of organic growth,
expansion into new territories and driving efficiencies across the business. However,
given that BELRON currently has only around 8 per cent of the world market they are
fully aware that a continuation of doing the right things should only lead to greater
business success.
According to its senior managers, this performance improvement may be traced in
part at least, back to a realisation five years ago by the CEO, Gary Lubner, that it
would not be strategy, access to capital or opportunities to enter new territories that
would stand in the way of BELRON achieving further sustained growth. The
constraint would come from the leadership capability of managers within the
organisation to realize the potential on offer. The organisation then began
transforming its approach to leadership development using “organisational climate”
as an input.
In the intervening years since this statement, 205 individuals performing roles at the
executive level at BELRON have had the climate they produce assessed (given some
re-assessments 440 datasets exist). In addition 304 people at an operational level within
business units have been assessed (given re-assessments there are 458 results). This
paper focuses on the Top Executive Team population.
In order to operationalise the measure, all senior managers at BELRON complete a
self assessment of the climate they experience from their own manager and also
request that their direct reports complete the questionnaire to record their own
perceptions. The survey is conducted annually and each year the manager receives his
or her personal “climate picture” displayed as a “gap analysis” of actual vs. ideal. The
data may then be incorporated into development planning for each manager – based
on how changes in behaviour are likely to enhance the climate experienced by their
direct reports. Each general manager also receives annual composite data of the
climate produced in their own territories. in other words, each general manager
receives the climate information relating to the entire leadership team in his/her
locality. It is with the leadership team climate or top team climate this paper is
concerned.
TPM In order to help simplify the interpretation of a range of climate “outcomes” the
14,3/4 HayGroup Technical Manual (Anderson and Zhu, 2002) has suggested that climate
data may be analysed in terms of four categories: High-performing, Energising,
Neutral and De-motivating. These categorisations rest on the assumptions that Clarity,
Standards and Team Commitment are the most important dimensions. We shall say
something briefly about each of them here:
126 (1) High-performing climates – no significant gaps on clarity, standards or team
commitment and at most one significant gap on flexibility, responsibility or
rewards. No more than three dimensions below the 35th percentile.
(2) Energising climates – no significant gaps on clarity, standards or team
commitment and at most two significant gaps on flexibility, responsibility or
rewards. No more than three dimensions below the 35th percentile.
(3) Neutral climates – no significant gaps on clarity, standards or team
commitment and at most three significant gaps on flexibility, responsibility or
rewards. No more than three dimensions below the 35th percentile:
.
OR they show no significant gaps on clarity, standards or team commitment,
two significant gaps on flexibility, responsibility or reward and between four
and six dimensions below the 35th percentile;
.
OR they show one significant gap on clarity, standards or team commitment,
two significant gaps on flexibility, responsibility or rewards, and no more
than three dimensions below the 35th percentile. No more than three
dimensions below the 35th percentile;
.
OR they show one significant gap on clarity, standards or team commitment,
no more than one significant gap on flexibility, responsibility and rewards,
and four to six dimensions below the 35th percentile;
.
OR they show two significant gaps on clarity, standards or team
commitment, no more than one significant gap on flexibility,
responsibility and rewards, and no more than three dimensions below the
35th percentile.
(4) De-motivating climates – meet none of the above criteria.

Data and performance in three top teams at BELRON

In the next section we will review some findings from work to progress in considering
the climates of three leadership teams in different business units within BELRON. We
also present available business performance data. Climate is presented using the four
different categories defined previously, high performance, energising, neutral and
de-motivating.

Business Unit S facts and figures

.
2005: 494 people and 88 branches.
. 2006: 570 people and 99 branches.
.
2007: 687 people and 100 branches.
Company “pen picture” – business unit “S” The case of
The climate data in Figure 2 show the composite view of a management team for a BELRON
BELRON business unit in Western Europe. The executive team has completed the
climate instrument three times; this team comprises Country manager, sales and
marketing director, finance, operations, distribution and HR. The business was begun
in 2001 and has now become highly profitable, with 100 branches and successfully
completed a recent acquisition. In fact the integration and consequent profit increases 127
are seen to be a result of the hard work put in by the leadership team at the country
level and the ongoing work they have put into their own development.
Despite the time and cost associated with programme, business unit S has now
rolled out the climate approach to leadership development to the next level of
managers – i.e. regional managers and call centre managers with large numbers of
direct reports.

Summary changes in climate and performance

.
Number of employees being assessed: Six – the local management team (each
being assessed by four to six direct reports).
.
Composite climate data 2005: Climate improved from de-motivating to high
performance.
.
Profitability 2005-2006: Profit increased by approximately 125 per cent.

Figure 2.
business unit data for
business unit “S”
TPM Individual perspective from business unit S
14,3/4 An interview with one member of the executive team from business unit S explains his
experience of the climate intervention:
I did not really believe it, but actually it has taught me quite a lot.
I made a development plan after the first iteration, really because there was an obligation that
128 I would do, but after the 2nd iteration – when the data had not changed much, I put in place a
more serious plan.
This time I took the data more seriously (2004). I discussed it with my team; we sat around
and chatted about it and I started to change my behaviour, I told them I would no longer
“solve” their problems for them, that I would be available for them to discuss their ideas with
and hold more regular 1:1s, but that I would leave them to decide and take responsibility . . .
By 2005 the data suggested I had moved into a position of having a high performing climate
and I can see now that we all (the top leadership team) needed to change.

Business unit C facts and figures

.
2005: 1,814 people and 281 branches.
.
2006: 1,630 people and 233 branches.
.
2007: 1,665 people and 228 branches.

Company “pen picture” – business unit “C” (see Figure 3)

Business unit C is a large operation and a long established business, again where there
has been a considerable recent acquisition. Despite the relative maturity of the business

Figure 3.
Business unit “C”
this is a fairly new leadership team of eight individuals who have successfully The case of
completed the large-scale integration of a new business. Business Unit C has also now BELRON
chosen to roll out the climate approach to the next level of managers in order to drive
performance across their business (see Figure 4).

129
Summary of business results since climate initiative rolled out
.
Number of employees being assessed: Eight – the local management team (each
having four to six direct reports, provide climate feedback.
.
Composite climate data 2005: Climate started as energising and became high
performance.
.
Profitability 2005-2006: Fourfold increase in trading profit.

Company “pen picture” – business function X.

Our third example is a number of units operating within and across BELRON, which
comprise a distinct function. The top team within this function meet several times a
year, and have consistently put leadership development and climate as a significant
agenda item at every meeting. They work together, through action learning and
coaching, to help understand how to improve the climate within their teams, and how
to leverage further performance improvement through focusing on their personal
leadership.

Figure 4.
Business function X
TPM Summary of business results since climate initiative rolled out
14,3/4 . Number of employees being assessed: 12 – the ”top team” team each having data
from four to six direct reports.
.
Composite climate data 2005: Climate has improved from de-motivating to high
performance.
130 .
Profitability 2005-2006: Profit figures for the whole function X have doubled
since 2005.

Summary
Table II summarises the three examples of the change on climate and performance
presented in this paper.
In each of these three examples it appears possible to see simultaneous
improvements in climate and business performance, although we would not at this
stage infer a causal link as this requires further investigation with a larger sample to be
conclusive. Interestingly, a common theme across the three business units described
here is their focus on leadership development. As well as focusing on the climate
created by the leadership team, they have also undertaken workshops to understand
how they operate as a team, and to understand each other better within these teams.
Action learning, coaching and regular feedback to each other are consistent themes. As
an example, whilst an individual’s climate data is treated as confidential and only
shared with the individual themselves, in these three business units they have
established an openness within the leadership team where each member of the team
naturally share their own data with their colleagues.
Climate has become a well-established tool for executive development within
BELRON where this is an ongoing commitment to expand the work, but also an
awareness that there is not always a correlation between reported team climate and
business performance. The HR Director for one of the three business units presented in
this paper comments that:
It is possible to see that managerial capability has improved overall and this is evidenced in
employee surveys as well as in the climate surveys. One behavioural change of this is that
managers no longer feel they must have all the answers – thus leading to more of a coaching
relationship.
I would say that the use of the climate instrument has helped establish clarity and support the
rollout of a new appraisal process.

Business unit No. of employees taking climate Climate vs profitability

Business unit S Six – the local management team Profit up approximately 125 per cent as
climate improved from de-motivating
to highly energising
Business unit C Eight – the local management team “Energising climate” replaced with
high-performing as trading profit up
fourfold
Business function 12 across three units Profit figures for whole of function X
Table II. X have doubled since 2005
Discussion and next steps The case of
BELRON is an organisation, which has enjoyed higher than average compound growth BELRON
over the past five years, and largely attributes this growth to its efforts on a number of
strategic fronts:
.
best practice;
.
driving organic growth;
131
.
successfully integrating new acquisitions;
.
maintaining a clear focus on appropriate measures in line with the strategy; and
.
a clear focus on leadership development.

Within BELRON there is a belief that the long-term investment in leadership

development is worthwhile, indeed they report over a 60 per cent improvement in
managerial capability as a result of the investment (based on aggregated climate
“scores” across the executive group) and the movements from de-motivating and
neutral to energising and high performance. However, there is also a developing sense
of the need to confirm and perhaps quantify this.
Historically, climate research has been plagued with issues around sample size and
the unit of analysis (see, for example, Payne et al., 1976). In this paper we acknowledge
the first as a limitation but feel we have made clear our unit of analysis.
The work to date has served as a pilot to establish the unit of analysis, to
retrospectively consider existing climate data the team level and look at this in
conjunction with some performance outcomes for the same time period. What emerges
is an interesting story, one, which leaves us wanting to know more. Data suggest that
improving climate may indeed sit alongside business success, but confirmation of this
requires more work than that conducted to date and the co-authors are currently
working on a new project to consider the branch manager population of a country
(numbering over 100) and looking for relationships between the climate reported in
their work unit and a range of branch performance indicators.

References
Anderson, K. and Zhu, G. (2002), Organisational Climate Survey: Technical Manual, HayGroup,
McClelland Center for Research and Innovation, Boston, MA.
Barrick, M.R., Bradley, B.H., Kristof-Brown, A.L. and Colbert, A.E. (2007), “The moderating role
of top management team interdependence: implications for real teams and working
groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 544-7.
Dansereau, F. and Alutto, J.A. (1990), “Level-of-analysis issues in climate and culture research”,
in Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Denison, D.R. (1996), “What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s view on a decade of paradigm wars”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 619-54.
Goleman, D. (2000), “Leadership that gets results”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 2,
pp. 78-90.
Gorman, L. and Malloy, E. (1972), People, Jobs and Organisations, Irish Management Institute,
Dublin.
TPM Guest, D., Michie, J., Sheehan, M., Conway, N. and Metochi, M. (2000), Employee Relations, HRM
and Business Performance: An Analysis of the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey,
14,3/4 CIPD, London.
Heskett, J., Jones, L., Loveman, T.O., Sasser, G.W., Earl, W., Schlesinger, W. and Leonard, A.
(1994), “Putting the service profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2,
pp. 164-70.
132 Houldsworth, E. and Jirasinghe, D. (2006), “Managing and measuring employee performance”,
Lessons from Research into HR Practice, Kogan Page, London.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 635-72.
Huselid, M., Jackson, S. and Schuler, R. (1997), “Technical and strategic human resource
management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 171-88.
Johnston, M.K., Reed, K., Lawrence, K. and Onken, M. (2007), “The link between communication
and financial performance in simulated organizational teams”, Journal of Managerial
Issues, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 536-53.
Litwin, G.H. and Stringer, R.A. (1968), Motivation and Organisational Climate, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Muchinsky, P.M. (1976), “An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organizational climate
questionnaire: an empirical and theoretical extension of the Sims and LaFollette study”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 371-92.
Parker, C.P., Baltes, B.B., Young, S.A., Huff, J.W., Altmann, R.A., Lacost, H.A. and Roberts, J.E.
(2003), “Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes:
a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 389-416.
Patterson, M., West, M.A., Lawthorn, R. and Nickell, S. (1997), Impact of People Management
Practices on Business Performance, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Shackleton, V.J., Dawson, J.F., Lawthorn, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson,
D.L. and Wallace, A.M. (2005), “Validating the organizational climate measure: links to
managerial practices, productivity and innovation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 379-408.
Payne, R.L. and Mansfield, R. (1973), “Relationships of perceptions of organizational climate to
organisational structure, context and hierarchical position”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 515-26.
Payne, R.L., Fineman, S. and Wall, T.D. (1976), “Organisational climate and job satisfaction:
a conceptual synthesis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16,
pp. 45-62.
Pfeffer, J. (1995), “Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effective
management of people”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 55-69.
Pollitt, C. (2005), “Performance management in practice: a comparative study of executive
agencies”, Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, Vol. 16, pp. 25-44.
Pugh, S.D., Dietz, J., Wiley, J.W. and Brooks, S.M. (2002), “Driving service effectiveness through
employee-customer linkages”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 73-84.
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N. and Hutchinson, S. (2003), “Inside the black box”, People Management,
15 May.
Richardson, R. and Thompson, M. (1999), “The impact of people management practices on The case of
business performance: a literature review”, Issues in People Management, Institute of
Personnel and Development, London. BELRON
Rogers, E.D., Miles, W.G. and Biggs, W.D. (1980), “The factor replicability of the Litwin and
Stringer Organizational Climate Questionnaire: an inter- and intra-organizational
assessment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 6, pp. 65-78.
Sims, H.P. and LaFollette, W. (1975), “An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organizational 133
climate questionnaire”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 19-38.
Townley, B. (1993), “Foucault – power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, July, pp. 518-45.
Townley, B. (1994), Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, Ethics and the Subject at
Work, Sage Publications, London, p. 72.
Watkin, C. and Hubbard, B. (2003), “Leadership motivation and the drivers of share price:
the business case for measuring organisational climate”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 380-6.
Winstanley, D. and Stuart-Smith, K. (1996), “Policing performance: the ethics of performance
management”, Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 66-84.

Corresponding author
Elizabeth Houldsworth can be contacted at: liz.houldsworth@henleymc.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints