Occupational and Organizational Climate Index (BOKX)

Abstract

The Occupational and Organizational Climate Index (known in German as the Berufs- bzw. Organisations-Klima-Index, abbreviated as BOKX) is an economically constructed, psychometrically validated screening instrument designed to evaluate individual experiential psychological states within work environments. Developed by Bernd Schmid, Josef A. Fischer, Markus Schwemmle, and Jaakko Johannsen, the BOKX captures subjective occupational climate through two distinct, four-item dimensions: Meaningfulness (Sinnhaftigkeit) and Competence (Kompetenz). The operationalization of these dimensions integrates core principles from Aaron Antonovsky’s salutogenic model—specifically the Sense of Coherence (SOC)—and Gretchen Spreitzer’s cognitive-affective theory of psychological empowerment in the workplace.

Comprising eight positively keyed items scored on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly agree”) to 6 (“strongly disagree”), the BOKX provides a resource-oriented assessment of factors that foster occupational health, subjective well-being, resilience, and vocational performance. Psychometric evaluation in a heterogeneous sample of German professionals ($N = 289$) established sound internal consistency for both subscales: Cronbach’s alpha values reached $\alpha = .89$ for Meaningfulness and $\alpha = .70$ for Competence, with McDonald’s omega coefficients ranging from $\omega = .71$ to $.90$. Exploratory principal axis factoring and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) corroborate an oblique two-factor structural model ($\chi^2 = 48.88$, $df = 19$, $\text{CFI} = .97$, $\text{RMSEA} = .074$, $\text{AIC} = 82.93$), which demonstrably outperforms competing unidimensional and higher-order hierarchical models. Furthermore, hierarchical regression analyses confirm the scale’s criterion and incremental validity: Meaningfulness accounts for 21% of incremental variance in the long-term sustainability of professional action ($eta = .50$, $p < .001$), while Competence explains significant incremental variance in crisis-coping capacity during macroeconomic adversity ($eta = .14$, $p < .05$). The BOKX serves as an efficient diagnostic screener across corporate sectors, public administration, coaching engagements, and freelance vocations.

Keywords

Occupational Climate, Organizational Climate, Meaningfulness, Competence, Salutogenesis, Psychological Empowerment, Sense of Coherence, Workplace Resources, Test Economy, Structural Equation Modeling, Psychometric Screening, Job Performance

Authors

The Occupational and Organizational Climate Index (BOKX) was conceptualized and empirically validated through an academic-practitioner collaboration between organizational psychologists, management consultants, and systemic coaching theorists in Germany:

• Dr. Josef A. Fischer — Organizational Psychologist and Psychometrics Researcher. Email: [email protected]
• Markus Schwemmle — Senior Management Consultant and Partner at the system worx Institut, Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected]
• Jaakko Johannsen — Executive Coach and Organization Development Specialist at the system worx Institut, Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected]
• Dr. Bernd Schmid — Pioneer of Systemic Transactional Analysis and Founder of the Institut für Systemische Beratung (ISB), Wiesloch, and Founder of the Schmid-Stiftung (formerly Stiftung forum humanum). Email: [email protected]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the BOKX is to provide a brief, parsimonious, yet methodologically robust diagnostic screening tool to capture employees’ and professionals’ subjective experiential states regarding their daily work context. In modern organizational psychology, measuring organizational climate is often burdened by long, exhaustive survey batteries that induce cognitive fatigue, lower response rates, and generate substantial survey administration costs. The BOKX addresses this methodological bottleneck by capturing the central affective and cognitive resources of work climate using only eight items, requiring less than three minutes to complete.

The theoretical rationale behind the BOKX centers on the premise that subjective climate is formed primarily by the intersection of personal meaning and experienced self-competence. In both clinical occupational health audits and corporate organization development (OD), identifying deficits in these psychological states serves as an early-warning diagnostic mechanism for burnout, presenteeism, turnover intention, and disengagement. Conversely, high expressions of meaning and competence reflect potent psychological capital and salutogenic health resources that buffer individuals against systemic stressors, organizational restructuring, and macroeconomic crises.

The BOKX is optimized for multiple applied contexts:

• Cross-Industry Enterprise Audits: Administered as part of regular employee engagement pulses, continuous listening strategies, or annual organizational climate assessments across private corporate enterprises and public administrative bodies.
• Executive and Leadership Coaching: Employed in one-on-one executive development and systemic coaching to establish baseline reflections on vocational alignment, self-efficacy, and structural clarity.
• Independent Professionals and Freelancers: Unlike instruments tied strictly to traditional organizational hierarchies, the BOKX can be completed by self-employed workers, consultants, and gig-economy knowledge workers to assess their vocational climate.
• Intervention Evaluation: Serving as a pre-post metric for workplace health promotion programs, organizational redesigns, or cultural transformation initiatives.

Psychological Construct

The BOKX conceptualizes “climate” not as an abstract cultural artifact, but as the shared or individual perception of the work environment reflected through critical psychological states. In distinguishing between organizational culture and organizational climate, the authors adhere to the framework articulated by Denison (1996) and Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey (2013): while culture encompasses deeply rooted, enduring subconscious values, beliefs, and historical assumptions (Schein, 2010), climate specifically reflects direct cognitive and affective evaluations of daily workplace policies, practices, and interpersonal experiences. The BOKX measures climate via a direct consensus model (Chan, 1998; Wallace et al., 2016), wherein personal experiential states represent isomorphic psychological phenomena that hold equivalent conceptual meaning whether analyzed at the individual, departmental, occupational, or organizational level (Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005).

Subscale 1: Meaningfulness (Sinnhaftigkeit)

The Meaningfulness dimension assesses the extent to which an individual experiences their professional role as purpose-driven, personally enriching, and congruent with their fundamental values, identities, and life goals. Derived conceptually from the “meaningfulness” component of Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence and Spreitzer’s empowerment model, this construct reflects the affective appraisal of occupational purpose. High scorers perceive a natural synergy between their personality and their professional prospects, enjoy going to work, and feel that their vocational pursuits contribute positively to their broader existential life space. Sample item concepts emphasize job-life spillover (“My work has an enriching effect on the rest of my life”) and existential value (“What I work for makes sense to me”). In psychological research, meaningfulness has consistently demonstrated robust protective effects against cynicism, emotional exhaustion, and occupational alienation, while serving as a primary driver of intrinsic motivation, organizational citizenship behavior, and career self-determination.

Subscale 2: Competence (Kompetenz)

The Competence dimension captures the subjective certainty that one possesses the necessary technical capabilities, knowledge, role clarity, and psychological stamina required to successfully manage daily vocational demands. Grounded in Albert Bandura’s (1982) theory of self-efficacy and the “manageability” and “comprehensibility” dimensions of Antonovsky’s salutogenic model, competence within the BOKX does not measure objective cognitive ability, but rather an individual’s subjective cognitive mastery over their work landscape. It encompasses three core operational facets: (a) comprehensibility of organizational dynamics (“I understand the contexts significant to my work”), (b) role clarity and skill currency (“The demands placed on me are clear to me”; “Regarding necessary qualifications, I am up to date”), and (c) workload coping efficacy (“The burdens and pressures can be well managed”). Competence functions as an essential cognitive resource that mitigates role ambiguity, enhances problem-focused coping, and sustains executive functioning under acute professional strain.

Theoretical Framework

The BOKX is conceptually anchored at the confluence of two theoretical traditions in occupational health psychology and organizational behavior: Aaron Antonovsky’s Salutogenic Model and Gretchen Spreitzer’s Theory of Psychological Empowerment.

Antonovsky’s Model of Salutogenesis

In classical medical sociology and clinical psychology, research long focused on pathogenesis—investigating the etiologies of illness, dysfunction, and distress. In contrast, Aaron Antonovsky (1979, 1987) introduced salutogenesis to explain why certain individuals maintain vitality, mental health, and high functioning despite pervasive biological, environmental, and psychosocial stressors. At the core of salutogenesis lies the Sense of Coherence (SOC), defined as a global orientation reflecting the extent to which an individual possesses a pervasive, enduring feeling of confidence that:

1. The stimuli deriving from one’s internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable, and explicable (Comprehensibility);
2. The resources are available to meet the demands posed by these stimuli (Manageability);
3. These demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement (Meaningfulness).

The BOKX adapts these salutogenic principles directly to the organizational environment. The Competence subscale operationalizes comprehensibility (understanding work dynamics and expectations) and manageability (perceived capability to cope with burdens), while the Meaningfulness subscale operationalizes Antonovsky’s motivational-existential component. By measuring these dimensions, the BOKX evaluates whether the occupational climate functions as a generalized resistance resource (GRR) or an environment that depletes salutogenic reserves.

Spreitzer’s Theory of Psychological Empowerment

Complementing salutogenic theory, the BOKX integrates the organizational framework of psychological empowerment pioneered by Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and Velthouse (1990), and formalized empirically by Spreitzer (1995, 1996). Spreitzer defined psychological empowerment as a motivational construct manifested in four cognitive dimensions: Meaning, Competence, Self-Determination, and Impact. The BOKX isolates the two most foundational and predictive of these four dimensions—Meaning and Competence—which meta-analytic research has shown to exhibit the strongest isomorphic validity across diverse occupational levels (Maynard, Wilson, & Mathieu, 2012).

Bandura’s (1982) socio-cognitive theory underpins the Competence dimension of empowerment, positing that personal agency and behavioral persistence hinge on outcome expectations and self-efficacy. Judge and Bono (2001) demonstrated meta-analytically that generalized self-efficacy and job competence perceptions correlate substantially with subjective job performance ($r = .23$) and overall job satisfaction ($r = .45$). When employees operate in a climate characterized by psychological empowerment, they perceive themselves not as passive recipients of external corporate pressures, but as active, capable agents navigating a meaningful professional trajectory.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the BOKX was conducted using rigorous multivariate techniques that evaluated structural, convergent, criterion, and incremental validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established through sequential exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The exploratory factor extraction demonstrated that all eight final items loaded cleanly onto their theoretically designated latent dimensions without cross-loadings exceeding $.35$, achieving factor simplicity and explaining 64.9% of total variance. Confirmatory structural equation modeling (SEM) verified the construct independence and mutual compatibility of Meaningfulness and Competence, confirming that while moderately intercorrelated ($r = .57$), they represent non-redundant, distinct psychological domains.

Criterion and Incremental Validity

Criterion-related validity was examined against two externally validated occupational indicators measured during a period of acute economic stress (the global financial crisis):

1. Sustainability of Professional Action (Nachhaltigkeit des beruflichen Handelns): Operationalized via a 6-point single-item metric evaluating the subjective perception of whether the sustainable impact, quality, and durability of one’s professional performance had systematically improved over the preceding two years.
2. Crisis-Coping Capacity (Krisenbewältigung): Operationalized via a 6-point single-item metric capturing the degree of personal emotional stability, resilience, and functional capability when confronted with macroeconomic disruption.

Bivariate correlational analyses revealed that Meaningfulness correlated strongly with the Sustainability of Professional Action ($r = .50$, $p < .001$), while Competence showed a statistically significant positive correlation with Crisis Coping ($r = .16$, $p < .01$).

To establish incremental validity, the authors conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses controlling for key socio-demographic covariates (age, gender, academic education, employment status, professional discipline) as well as the alternate BOKX subscale:

• Prediction of Professional Sustainability: Entering the Meaningfulness subscale in the final regression step yielded a highly significant standardized beta coefficient of $eta = .50$ ($p < .001$), explaining an additional 21% of unique variance ($\Delta R^2 = .21$) over and above demographic covariates and the Competence subscale.
• Prediction of Crisis Coping: Entering the Competence subscale in the final regression step yielded a statistically significant standardized beta of $eta = .14$ ($p < .05$), accounting for 3% of incremental variance ($\Delta R^2 = .03$) beyond socio-demographics and the Meaningfulness subscale.

These findings substantiate the divergent criterion validity of the two subscales: Meaningfulness specifically fuels long-term sustainable commitment and purpose, whereas Competence uniquely equips individuals to weather acute disruptive challenges.

Reliability

The BOKX exhibits psychometric reliability that satisfies the empirical standards required for research applications and psychological screening assessments:

Internal Consistency

In the primary validation sample ($N = 289$), internal consistency was evaluated using both Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$):

• Meaningfulness Subscale (4 items): Demonstrated high internal consistency, with $lpha = .89$ and $\omega = .90$. Item-total correlations (part-whole corrected discriminatory power, $r_{it}$) for this subscale ranged between $.75$ and $.79$, indicating strong item homogeneity and low measurement error.
• Competence Subscale (4 items): Yielded an acceptable internal consistency of $lpha = .70$ and $\omega = .71$. The item-total correlations ($r_{it}$) ranged from $.44$ to $.54$. Given that this subscale captures a broad conceptual spectrum—spanning cognitive role clarity, structural comprehension, technical skill maintenance, and workload stress mastery—an alpha of $.70$ reflects satisfactory multidimensional breadth within a concise four-item format (Moosbrugger & Kelava, 2012).

Item Metrics and Distribution Characteristics

Descriptive analyses of the individual items on the 1-to-6 scale ($N = 289$) revealed normal to moderately skewed distributions, reflecting general positive workplace adjustment among active professionals:

• Item 1 (Meaningfulness): $M = 2.15$, $SD = 1.11$, $r_{it} = .75$, Skewness = $1.18$, Kurtosis = $1.15$
• Item 3 (Meaningfulness): $M = 2.28$, $SD = 1.21$, $r_{it} = .75$, Skewness = $1.07$, Kurtosis = $.87$
• Item 5 (Meaningfulness): $M = 2.71$, $SD = 1.48$, $r_{it} = .79$, Skewness = $.72$, Kurtosis = $-.39$
• Item 7 (Meaningfulness): $M = 2.55$, $SD = 1.34$, $r_{it} = .79$, Skewness = $.86$, Kurtosis = $-.03$
• Item 2 (Competence): $M = 1.64$, $SD = 0.72$, $r_{it} = .46$, Skewness = $1.55$, Kurtosis = $5.32$
• Item 4 (Competence): $M = 2.00$, $SD = 0.98$, $r_{it} = .50$, Skewness = $1.24$, Kurtosis = $1.88$
• Item 6 (Competence): $M = 1.96$, $SD = 0.94$, $r_{it} = .54$, Skewness = $1.47$, Kurtosis = $3.06$
• Item 8 (Competence): $M = 2.40$, $SD = 1.15$, $r_{it} = .44$, Skewness = $.91$, Kurtosis = $.61$

Scale-level normative baselines established a mean of $M = 2.42$ ($SD = 1.12$, Skewness = $.99$, Excess Kurtosis = $.47$) for Meaningfulness, and $M = 2.00$ ($SD = 0.69$, Skewness = $1.09$, Excess Kurtosis = $1.56$) for Competence. Note that because response anchors assign 1 to “strongly agree” and 6 to “strongly disagree”, lower numerical values represent higher experiential levels of the measured construct.

Factor Analysis

The factorial architecture of the BOKX was systematically developed and tested through a two-stage psychometric protocol involving exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for item reduction, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling.

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Selection

Initially, an expansive pool of candidate items was formulated by Dr. Bernd Schmid and evaluated by a panel of industrial psychologists and organizational development consultants. From this pool, 11 primary candidate items were selected for psychometric scrutiny. An exploratory Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) analysis using oblique Promax rotation ($kappa = 4$) was conducted on the 11 items. Two distinct factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 emerged, jointly explaining 64.2% of the variance. Seven items loaded onto Meaningfulness and four items loaded onto Competence, with zero cross-loadings exceeding $.35$.

To achieve a parsimonious, balanced scale with an identical number of items per subscale ($4:4$), the Meaningfulness scale was reduced from seven to four items. Selection criteria followed classical test theory principles as outlined by Lienert and Raatz (1998), utilizing both the part-whole corrected discriminatory power ($r_{it}$) and the Item Selection Value ($S_i$, Selektionskennwert). Because the BOKX employs a polychotomous Likert scale, the selection value incorporates both item discrimination and the item difficulty index ($p_i$):

$$S_i = r_{it} \cdot \sqrt{p_i \cdot (1 – p_i)}$$

Items demonstrating the optimal balance of high item discrimination ($r_{it} ge .78$) and balanced difficulty ($p_i = .71 – .81$) were retained (yielding $S_i$ values between $.89$ and $.98$, as shown in Table 1 below). Items exhibiting lower selection values (e.g., “Ich kann wichtige Dinge bewegen” [$S_i = .83$], “Ich fühle mich in beruflichen Beziehungen wohl” [$S_i = .86$], and “Insgesamt bin ich mit meiner beruflichen Entwicklung auf einem guten Weg” [$S_i = .86$]) were eliminated.

Table 1: Psychometric Properties of the Initial 11 Candidate Items

Candidate Item Statement	Target Subscale	Item Discrimination ($r_{it}$)	Difficulty Index ($p_i$)	Selection Value ($S_i$)	Selection Decision
In der Regel gehe ich gerne zur Arbeit.	Meaningfulness	.78	.81	.98	Retained (Item 1)
Wofür ich arbeite, macht mir Sinn.	Meaningfulness	.78	.79	.95	Retained (Item 3)
Die Arbeit wirkt auf mein sonstiges Leben bereichernd.	Meaningfulness	.81	.71	.89	Retained (Item 5)
Meine Persönlichkeit und meine beruflichen Möglichkeiten passen zusammen.	Meaningfulness	.81	.74	.93	Retained (Item 7)
Ich kann wichtige Dinge bewegen.	Meaningfulness	.76	.69	.83	Excluded
Ich fühle mich in beruflichen Beziehungen wohl.	Meaningfulness	.74	.76	.86	Excluded
Insgesamt bin ich mit meiner beruflichen Entwicklung auf einem guten Weg.	Meaningfulness	.76	.74	.86	Excluded
Die für meine Arbeit bedeutsamen Zusammenhänge verstehe ich.	Competence	.46	.81	.58	Retained (Item 2)
Die Anforderungen an mich sind mir klar.	Competence	.50	.79	.61	Retained (Item 4)
Bezüglich der notwendigen Qualifikationen bin ich auf dem Laufenden.	Competence	.54	.71	.59	Retained (Item 6)
Die Belastungen können gut bewältigt werden.	Competence	.44	.74	.50	Retained (Item 8)

A repeat EFA on the final eight-item set confirmed the clean two-factor solution, accounting for 64.9% of total variance, with a factor correlation of $r = .57$ between Meaningfulness and Competence, confirming simple structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural equation modeling in AMOS/Mplus was applied to compare alternative measurement models using standard fit criteria (Bühner, 2010; Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003): the Comparative Fit Index (CFI $ge .95$), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA $le .05$ for good fit, $le .08$ for acceptable fit), and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC, where lower values denote superior parsimony and fit).

Table 2: Goodness-of-Fit Comparison of Alternative Structural Models

Model Specification	$\chi^2$	$df$	$p$	RMSEA	CFI	AIC
Two Intercorrelated First-Order Factors (Theoretical BOKX Model)	48.88	19	< .001	.074	.97	82.93
Single-Factor Model (General Work Climate Factor)	203.12	20	< .001	.170	.79	231.60
Second-Order Hierarchical Factor Model	141.14	41	< .001	.150	.86	173.14

As documented in Table 2, the hypothesized model positing two correlated latent factors showed acceptable to excellent fit ($\chi^2 = 48.88$, $df = 19$, $\text{CFI} = .97$, $\text{RMSEA} = .074$, $\text{AIC} = 82.93$). Although the RMSEA slightly exceeds the strict $.05$ benchmark, it falls well within the acceptable $.08$ cutoff (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Crucially, this model decisively outperformed both the single general factor model ($\Delta\chi^2 = 154.24$, $\Delta df = 1$, $p < .001$) and the second-order model, demonstrating that Meaningfulness and Competence represent psychometrically distinct facets of the occupational experience.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational features and administration parameters of the BOKX are structured as follows:

• Diagnostic Classification: Standardized self-report psychometric screening index; organizational and occupational climate assessment.
• Constructs Assessed:
  • Meaningfulness (Sinnhaftigkeit): Experiencing professional activity as purposeful, value-congruent, and existentially enriching.
  • Competence (Kompetenz): Experiencing vocational self-efficacy, role transparency, structural understanding, and workload coping capability.
• Item Inventory: 8 positively phrased items (4 items per subscale).
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-pencil inventory, computerized survey, mobile web assessment, or structured diagnostic interview within executive coaching.
• Target Population: Fully applicable across diverse organizational strata—corporate employees, senior executives, civil servants, and independent self-employed/freelance professionals. Validated across tertiary-educated cohorts and vocational workforce samples.
• Reference Period: Respondent appraisals are anchored to experiences over the preceding six months (“Bitte beziehen Sie sich auf den Zeitraum der letzten 6 Monate“).
• Response Scale (6-point Likert):
  • $1$ = stimmt völlig (completely agree)
  • $2$ = stimmt weitestgehend (largely agree)
  • $3$ = stimmt teilweise (partially agree)
  • $4$ = stimmt gerade noch (barely agree)
  • $5$ = stimmt eher nicht (rather disagree)
  • $6$ = stimmt überhaupt nicht (completely disagree)
• Scoring and Index Calculation:
  • All eight items are positively phrased. In the original German coding protocol, lower scores correspond to higher levels of agreement (higher experienced meaning and competence).
  • Subscales should be scored independently as unweighted additive composite indices: Meaningfulness Index = $\sum (\text{Items } 1, 3, 5, 7) / 4$; Competence Index = $\sum (\text{Items } 2, 4, 6, 8) / 4$.
  • Researchers wishing to align scores with standard positive metric conventions may reverse-code the items ($1 = 6, 2 = 5, 3 = 4, 4 = 3, 5 = 2, 6 = 1$), such that higher numerical totals reflect greater experienced climate resources.
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes, conferring optimal test economy.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Occupational and Organizational Climate Index (BOKX) was developed in 2009 during an empirical organizational research project sponsored by the Schmid-Stiftung (originally founded as the Stiftung forum humanum) in conjunction with the professional journal Wirtschaftspsychologie aktuell.

The scale was developed as an open-access scientific screening tool intended for broad application across organizational psychology research, academic field studies, and practitioner coaching. It may be utilized for non-commercial scientific research, academic dissertations, and institutional teaching free of royalty fees, provided full academic attribution is accorded to the test authors (Fischer, Schwemmle, Johannsen, & Schmid). For commercial consulting deployments, enterprise-wide climate audits, or platform integration, interested practitioners and corporate users are requested to contact the test authors and affiliated institutes (Institut für Systemische Beratung Wiesloch / system worx Institut) for institutional licensing and benchmarking inquiries.

References

• Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. Jossey-Bass.
• Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. Jossey-Bass.
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
• Bühner, M. (2010). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3. Aufl.). Pearson Studium.
• Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
• Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods, 8(4), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105280056
• Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306983
• Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071865
• Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
• Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse (6. Aufl.). Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.
• Maynard, M. T., Wilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Team empowerment: A meta-analysis of its antecedents, consequences and motivational underpinnings. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1231–1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312444086
• Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (Hrsg.). (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20072-4
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
• Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
• Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.5465/256789
• Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926
• Wallace, J. C., Butts, M. M., Johnson, P. D., Stevens, F. G., & Smith, M. B. (2016). A multilevel investigation of leadership and climate: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1184–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313493322

Items of the Scale