Organizational Culture Profile (OCP)

Abstract

The Organizational Culture Profile (OCP), originally conceptualized and psychometrically operationalized by Charles A. O’Reilly III, Jennifer A. Chatman, and David F. Caldwell in 1991, represents an assessment methodology in organizational psychology and management research. Designed to operationalize the person-organization fit (P-O fit) paradigm through a profile comparison approach, the OCP measures central organizational and individual values across a comprehensive set of 54 value statements. Rather than relying on traditional independent Likert-type scales, the original OCP employs a standardized Q-sort methodology, forcing respondents to distribute 54 items across nine ordered categories following a specified quasi-normal distribution pattern (2-4-6-9-12-9-6-4-2). Factor analytic investigations demonstrate that 27 core items load definitively onto seven primary dimensions of organizational culture: Innovation, Stability, Respect for People, Outcome Orientation, Attention to Detail, Team Orientation, and Aggressiveness. A widely cited 40-item revision was subsequently introduced by Cable and Judge in 1997. The assessment measures both an organization’s descriptive cultural profile (aggregated across organizational key informants) and an individual’s subjective value preferences (the ideal culture), yielding a commensurate person-organization congruence score expressed as a Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Psychometric evaluations consistently confirm high inter-rater agreement and reliability, with aggregated organizational profile reliabilities assessed via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula yielding coefficients ranging between .84 and .94. Furthermore, test-retest reliability across a six-month interval averages .61 overall and reaches .87 for culturally definitive extreme items. The OCP demonstrates robust criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity, exhibiting significant predictive relationships with normative organizational commitment, job satisfaction, intention to quit, employee turnover, and contextual task performance across diverse industries.

Keywords

Organizational Culture Profile, OCP, Person-Organization Fit, Q-sort Methodology, Organizational Values, Profile Comparison Approach, Organizational Climate, Work Values, Organizational Commitment, Employee Turnover, Psychometrics

Authors

The Organizational Culture Profile was formulated and validated by a collaborative team of organizational behavior scholars:

• Charles A. O’Reilly III, Ph.D. — Frank E. Buck Professor of Management at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. Dr. O’Reilly is an internationally recognized scholar in organizational culture, executive leadership, organizational demography, and strategic alignment.
• Jennifer A. Chatman, Ph.D. — Paul J. Cortese Distinguished Professor of Management and Associate Dean at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Chatman has extensively pioneered theoretical and empirical paradigms regarding the impact of organizational culture on performance and the developmental dynamics of person-organization fit.
• David F. Caldwell, Ph.D. — Stephan and Anne Newberry Professor of Management Emeritus at the Leavey School of Business, Santa Clara University. Dr. Caldwell specializes in group dynamics, team effectiveness, managerial career trajectories, and person-job fit methodologies.

Subsequent psychometric refinements, including the widely utilized 40-item non-forced choice adaptation, were spearheaded by Daniel M. Cable (London Business School) and Timothy A. Judge (The Ohio State University) in 1996 and 1997.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Organizational Culture Profile is to provide a rigorous, commensurate, and theoretically sound measurement system capable of simultaneously characterizing organizational value systems and individual employee value preferences. Historically, the empirical investigation of organizational culture was hindered by two fundamental methodological impediments: the epistemological schism between qualitative anthropological field studies and quantitative psychometric inventories, and the commensurability problem in interactionist psychology.

Qualitative investigations frequently provided rich idiographic tapestries of corporate life but lacked generalizability, replicability, and the standardized metric properties required to statistically test interactionist hypotheses. Conversely, conventional quantitative survey instruments frequently relied on standardized Likert-type questionnaires that measured culture along disjointed dimensions, failing to capture the holistic configuration of shared behavioral norms and underlying assumptions that define a specific organizational ethos. The OCP was systematically engineered to bridge this divide through a profile comparison approach.

In clinical, industrial-organizational, and organizational consulting contexts, the primary applied and research purposes of the OCP encompass:

• Operationalizing Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit): The OCP provides a mathematically elegant mechanism for quantifying the congruence between an individual’s personal value hierarchy and the prevailing value system of their employing institution. Fit is calculated by correlating the individual’s sort with the organizational profile, providing a single ipsative or semi-ipsative metric that bypasses the perceptual biases typical of direct subjective fit inquiries (e.g., asking respondents directly: "How well do you feel you fit in this organization?").
• Cultural Diagnostics and Strategic Auditing: The tool enables organizational leaders, occupational psychologists, and change management consultants to rigorously map the normative profile of a firm. It identifies which cultural imperatives are intensely held and widely shared across structural echelons, geographic subsidiaries, or functional departments, and flags areas of normative fragmentation or cultural misalignment.
• Mergers and Acquisitions Due Diligence: In corporate restructuring, the OCP serves as an analytical instrument to evaluate cultural compatibility between merging corporate entities. By conducting OCP assessments across both candidate organizations prior to operational integration, leadership can pinpoint structural points of friction (e.g., a highly aggressive, outcome-oriented firm merging with an organization deeply rooted in stability and respect for people).
• Personnel Selection, Recruitment, and Socialization: In recruitment and talent acquisition, comparing the cultural preference profiles of job applicants to the benchmark profile of the hiring firm allows human resource practitioners to forecast longitudinal retention, onboarding velocity, employee engagement, and psychological adjustment.
• Investigating Person-Job and Competency Fit: As demonstrated by Caldwell and O’Reilly (1990), the underlying profile comparison methodology can be adapted to evaluate person-job fit by matching candidate competencies against job requirement profiles established by panels of subject matter experts.

Psychological Construct

The central psychological and organizational construct operationalized by the OCP is organizational culture, specifically defined as a system of shared values and behavioral norms that define what is important, direct attention, and govern social conduct within an institution. Values are conceptualized as enduring, trans-situational cognitive beliefs concerning desirable end-states or modes of conduct that guide the selection or evaluation of behavior and events.

The OCP measures culture by presenting a broad lexicon of 54 value attributes. Through rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of these attributes, O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) identified that 27 core items cleanly delineate seven underlying psychometric dimensions of organizational culture. These dimensions can be grouped into three meta-domains: task-handling modalities, interpersonal relational norms, and action-orientation imperatives.

1. Task-Handling Dimensions

• Attention to Detail: This dimension reflects an organizational value system that places paramount emphasis on precision, analytical rigor, and accurate execution. In organizations with strong detail orientation, employees are expected to thoroughly scrutinize operational data, minimize technical discrepancies, and adhere to strict quality control parameters. Items exemplifying this factor include "Paying attention to detail", "Being precise", and "Being analytical". This orientation is commonly dominant in engineering firms, accounting and financial auditing institutions, clinical laboratories, and legal practices.
• Stability: This dimension assesses an emphasis on organizational predictability, continuity, security, and rule adherence. Stable cultures establish structured standard operating procedures (SOPs), emphasize hierarchy, and prioritize risk mitigation over dynamic experimentation. Central value items loading on this factor include "Stability", "Predictability", and "Being rule oriented". Historically, government agencies, utility providers, and mature financial corporations exhibit elevated profiles on this cultural dimension.
• Innovation: The innovation dimension measures the degree to which an enterprise actively encourages calculated risk-taking, dynamic experimentation, and responsiveness to environmental volatility and emergent market opportunities. Culturally, high innovation manifests as psychological safety for operational failure, rapid prototyping, and tolerance for ambiguity. Representative items include "Being innovative", "Risk taking", "A willingness to experiment", and "Being quick to take advantage of opportunities". High-technology startups, software firms, and research and development laboratories consistently anchor high on this dimension.

2. Interpersonal Relational Dimensions

• Team Orientation: This dimension evaluates the degree to which work activities, performance appraisals, and operational structures are organized around collaborative groups rather than isolated individuals. In team-oriented organizations, information is disseminated transparently, mutual accountability is reinforced, and collective achievement supersedes individual aggrandizement. Value items defining this dimension include "Being team oriented", "Working in collaboration with others", and "Sharing information freely".
• Respect for People: This dimension encapsulates organizational values centered on humanistic benevolence, fairness, equity, and dignity for individual organizational participants. Cultures scoring high on respect for people demonstrate organizational support, sensitivity toward employee well-being, and active protection of individual rights. Characteristic items comprise "Respect for the individual’s right", "Fairness", "Being supportive", and "Tolerance".

3. Individual Action and Behavioral Dimensions

• Outcome Orientation: This dimension denotes an institutional ethos that prioritizes operational deliverables, high performance targets, and quantifiable ends over process formalities. Outcome-oriented systems align organizational incentives with measurable output, holding personnel strictly accountable for objective milestones. Defining items include "Being results oriented", "Having high expectations for performance", and "Achievement orientation". Commercial sales networks, investment banks, and management consulting firms predominantly exemplify this orientation.
• Aggressiveness: This dimension captures the degree to which the organizational climate fosters hyper-competitiveness, bold market assertiveness, and combative internal or external postures. Rather than endorsing passive coexistence or placid workplace relationships, aggressive cultures emphasize winning, dominating competitive landscapes, and confronting organizational friction head-on. Key items loading on this factor include "Being aggressive" and "Being competitive".

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Organizational Culture Profile is rooted in interactionist psychology, Edgar Schein’s functional model of organizational culture, and the Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework articulated by Benjamin Schneider.

Interactionist psychology, originating from Kurt Lewin’s foundational field theory equation $B = f(P, E)$ (Behavior is a function of the Person and the Environment), asserts that human behavior in organizational settings cannot be adequately explained by personal traits or environmental conditions in isolation. Instead, individual psychological reactions, work attitudes, and behavioral trajectories are shaped by the interaction and mutual congruence between the attributes of the person and the demands, incentives, and structural realities of the organizational environment.

Murray (1938) further developed this interactionist perspective with his need-press theory, proposing that individuals possess idiosyncratic internal needs that must be satisfied by congruent environmental "presses" or resources. Applying this paradigm to institutional dynamics, O’Reilly et al. (1991) posited that when an employee’s personal value structure matches the behavioral press of the organization’s culture, positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes naturally manifest. Conversely, value incongruence produces cognitive dissonance, social estrangement, affective withdrawal, and eventual organizational exit.

To rigorously operationalize the environmental side of this equation, O’Reilly and colleagues drew heavily upon Edgar Schein’s (1985) multi-level taxonomy of organizational culture. Schein partitioned culture into three concentric strata:

1. Artifacts: Visible structures, processes, dress codes, and architectural layouts;
2. Espoused and Enacted Values: Strategies, stated goals, philosophies, and conscious justifications for corporate action; and
3. Basic Underlying Assumptions: Unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, and thoughts that represent the ultimate source of cultural norms.

The OCP targets the pivotal second tier of Schein’s conceptual taxonomy: values and social norms. Shared values act as social control mechanisms that guide member interpretations and behavioral expectations. When these values are widely held and deeply felt throughout the organizational hierarchy, an organization possesses a "strong" culture that regulates behavior without relying entirely on formal managerial oversight.

Concurrently, the theoretical mechanics of the OCP are grounded in Schneider’s (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) framework. Schneider argued that "the people make the place." Individuals are not randomly distributed across corporations; rather, they are attracted to enterprises that project cultures compatible with their personal value orientations. Organizations, in turn, deliberately select candidates who appear to fit their prevailing cultural ethos. Finally, individuals who do not fit experience cognitive friction and attrition, either departing voluntarily or being dismissed through selective attrition mechanisms. The OCP provides the empirical methodology required to validate the predictions of the ASA framework across longitudinal employee lifecycles.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Organizational Culture Profile has been confirmed through extensive construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related empirical investigations across diverse organizational sectors, spanning accounting firms, healthcare networks, manufacturing conglomerates, high-technology corporations, and academic institutions.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established by demonstrating that the 54 value statements thoroughly cover organizational cultural variations while capturing stable underlying dimensions. In their foundational study across diverse samples (undergraduate students, MBA candidates, government employees, and accounting professionals), O’Reilly et al. (1991) conducted exploratory factor analyses of both individual preference profiles and organizational characterizations. Across these iterations, 27 of the 54 items reliably mapped onto the seven distinct cultural dimensions.

Chatman and Jehn (1994) corroborated the structural invariance of the OCP across 15 major U.S. service firms operating in the accounting, consulting, and transportation sectors. Their findings confirmed that the factor structure remained highly consistent across disparate industrial contexts, supporting the construct validity of the OCP as a generalized dimensional framework.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Inter-dimensional correlations documented across foundational validation studies provide clear evidence of convergent and discriminant validity, demonstrating logical theoretical relationships among cultural factors (O’Reilly et al., 1991; Sheridan, 1992):

• Attention to Detail correlates positively with Stability, but correlates negatively with Team Orientation and an interpersonal outcome focus, confirming that extreme procedural precision can constrain interpersonal flexibility.
• Stability displays a substantial negative correlation with Innovation and outcome orientation, indicating that rigid adherence to predictable standard operating procedures opposes organizational risk-taking and operational fluidity.
• Innovation correlates positively with an aggressive, outcome-focused orientation toward market opportunities, supporting the expected association between proactive change and ambitious performance targets.
• Team Orientation exhibits a strong positive correlation with Respect for People and a marked negative correlation with internal Aggressiveness, delineating cooperative, psychologically safe workplace climates from combative, internally competitive environments.
• Respect for People correlates negatively with Aggressiveness, illustrating clear discriminant separation between humanistic relational values and cutthroat individualistic competition.

Cable and Judge (1996) examined convergent validity by evaluating whether objective person-organization fit computed through the OCP profile comparison method aligned with subjective, direct assessments of fit. Their structural equation modeling revealed that the OCP-derived fit coefficient correlated positively and significantly with direct subjective assessments of P-O fit ($r = .37$), subjective person-job fit ($r = .27$), favorable perceptions of corporate compensation and reward architectures, and positive general organizational image, while remaining empirically distinct from them.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The predictive validity of the OCP has been established across multiple industrial-organizational criteria:

• Work Attitudes: In O’Reilly et al. (1991), baseline P-O fit scores correlated positively with normative organizational commitment ($r = .33, p < .01$) and overall job satisfaction ($r = .24, p < .05$).
• Turnover Intentions and Actual Turnover: Initial person-organization fit scores correlated negatively with employees’ turnover intentions measured one year later ($r = -.37, p < .01$). Moreover, survival analyses documented that employees exhibiting lower baseline OCP fit with their employing accounting firms were significantly more likely to voluntarily leave the organization within a 24-month observation window ($p < .01$).
• Employee Job Performance: In a related investigation utilizing the profile comparison approach to evaluate person-job fit, Caldwell and O’Reilly (1990) observed that competencies assessed using Q-sort profiles correlated positively with independent managerial performance ratings across five organizational samples, documenting the criterion utility of profile correlations for behavioral appraisal.
• Tenure and Demographics: Cable and Judge (1996) found that person-organization fit was negatively correlated with total accumulated career work experience, indicating that as employees gain diverse vocational experience, their baseline value structures may become increasingly differentiated from the monolithic cultures of specific hiring institutions.

Reliability

Because the classic Organizational Culture Profile relies primarily on an ipsative, forced-distribution Q-sort design across 54 statements rather than isolated normative Likert batteries, conventional metric indices like internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha are mathematically constrained for the total instrument. Instead, psychometricians measure the reliability of OCP organizational profiles by analyzing inter-rater agreement and aggregation stability via the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, supplemented by test-retest longitudinal analyses and subscale-specific internal consistencies.

Inter-Rater Agreement and Aggregation Reliability

To establish a shared organizational cultural profile, ratings from multiple key informants within an organization are aggregated. The reliability of these aggregated profiles is evaluated by applying the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula to average inter-rater correlation coefficients across informants. Across numerous validation investigations, the composite Spearman-Brown reliability coefficients for aggregated cultural profiles demonstrate consistency:

• O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) documented aggregate profile reliabilities ranging from .84 to .91 across diverse organizational samples.
• Caldwell and O’Reilly (1990) reported profile reliabilities between .88 and .94 in competency-based job profiling.
• Sheridan (1992) found organizational culture profile reliabilities ranging between .85 and .93 across multiple healthcare networks.
• Chatman and Jehn (1994) observed that pairwise inter-rater correlations within 15 individual organizations ranged from .26 to .66 (median $r = .44$). When aggregated across the standard panel of 10 to 15 key informants per firm, the resultant Spearman-Brown aggregate reliability systematically exceeded .89.
• Vandenberghe (1999) validated the OCP within a European institutional context, obtaining aggregate profile reliabilities between .86 and .92.

Test-Retest Temporal Stability

Cable and Judge (1997) assessed the temporal stability of organizational cultural representations over a six-month interval. Across the complete profile, test-retest reliability averaged $r = .61$. Importantly, when examining items situated at the extremes of the Q-sort distribution — representing traits identified as either highly characteristic (categories 7, 8, and 9) or highly uncharacteristic (categories 1, 2, and 3) — the mean test-retest reliability climbed to $r = .87$. This confirms that an organization’s core values exhibit high temporal stability over time.

Subscale Internal Consistency in Non-Forced Adaptations

When the OCP items are administered using unconstrained Likert response formats (e.g., Cable & Judge, 1997; Sarros et al., 2005), traditional Cronbach’s alpha coefficients can be calculated for the underlying cultural factors. Across these studies, the seven dimensions typically yield satisfactory to high internal consistency coefficients:

• Innovation: $\alpha = .78 – .85$
• Stability: $\alpha = .74 – .81$
• Respect for People: $\alpha = .82 – .88$
• Outcome Orientation: $\alpha = .76 – .83$
• Attention to Detail: $\alpha = .73 – .80$
• Team Orientation: $\alpha = .80 – .86$
• Aggressiveness: $\alpha = .71 – .79$

Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the Organizational Culture Profile was derived using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and later corroborated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across independent organizational samples.

Original Exploratory Factor Architecture

In the foundational investigation conducted by O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991), exploratory factor analysis was executed using principal component extraction followed by orthogonal (Varimax) rotation on the individual preference ratings of the 54 value statements. A parallel analysis was conducted on descriptive organizational ratings to evaluate structural comparability.

The scree plot and eigenvalue-greater-than-one criteria initially suggested the extraction of eight factors. However, the eighth factor accounted for marginal incremental variance and failed to maintain substantive conceptual interpretability. Consequently, a clean seven-factor solution was retained, which accounted for approximately 52% of the total variance. Of the 54 original items, exactly 27 items loaded strongly (≥ .40) onto these seven distinct dimensions with minimal cross-loadings (≤ .25 on alternate factors):

Subsequent Factor Replications and Cable & Judge Revision

Cable and Judge (1997) refined the OCP by eliminating 14 peripheral items that loaded ambiguously across factors or exhibited low conceptual salience in contemporary industrial contexts, introducing a streamlined 40-item adaptation (designated with "CJ" markers). Confirmatory factor analyses conducted on the 40-item revision demonstrated acceptable overall goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., $\chi^2/df < 2.5$, Comparative Fit Index $[\text{CFI}] ge .90$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation $[\text{RMSEA}] le .06$), supporting the underlying dimensional integrity of the instrument.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Organizational Culture Profile is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Dual-purpose Q-sort Psychometric Profiling Inventory (applicable for descriptive organizational climate assessments and prescriptive individual value sorting).
• Item Count: 54 individual value statements in the full original instrument (O’Reilly et al., 1991); 40 items in the condensed Cable and Judge (1997) variation.
• Administration Format: Standard physical deck of 54 shuffling index cards, or equivalent digital computerized drag-and-drop Q-sort interface.
• Response Methodology: Quasi-normal forced distribution across a 9-category continuum. The respondent is strictly required to assign a fixed quota of statements into each of the nine categories, matching the symmetric pattern: 2 – 4 – 6 – 9 – 12 – 9 – 6 – 4 – 2.
• Category Scale Anchor Definitions:
  • Category 9: Most characteristic / Most desirable (Exactly 2 items)
  • Category 8: Extremely characteristic / Extremely desirable (Exactly 4 items)
  • Category 7: Very characteristic / Very desirable (Exactly 6 items)
  • Category 6: Somewhat characteristic / Somewhat desirable (Exactly 9 items)
  • Category 5: Neutral / Neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic (Exactly 12 items)
  • Category 4: Somewhat uncharacteristic / Somewhat undesirable (Exactly 9 items)
  • Category 3: Very uncharacteristic / Very undesirable (Exactly 6 items)
  • Category 2: Extremely uncharacteristic / Extremely undesirable (Exactly 4 items)
  • Category 1: Most uncharacteristic / Most undesirable (Exactly 2 items)
• Dual-Track Administration Instructions:
  • Track A (Descriptive Organizational Profile): Informants are instructed: "Important values may be expressed in the form of norms or shared expectations about what’s important, how to behave, or what attitudes are appropriate. Please sort the 54 values into a row of nine categories, placing at one end of the row those cards that you consider to be the most characteristic aspects of the culture of your organization, and at the other end those cards that you believe to be the least characteristic." The sorting profiles across multiple key informants (typically 10–25 respondents across diverse hierarchical levels) are averaged item-by-item to construct a composite organizational profile vector.
  • Track B (Subjective Personal Preference Profile): Individual employees or job applicants sort the exact same 54 cards by answering: "How important is it for this characteristic to be a part of the organization you work for?" across categories ranging from "Most undesirable" (Category 1) to "Most desirable" (Category 9).
• Scoring and Fit Computation Rules:
  • Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit): Fit is operationalized by calculating a non-parametric or parametric Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient ($r$) between the individual’s 54-item preference vector and the organization’s aggregated 54-item profile vector. Resultant coefficients range from $-1.00$ (perfect value opposition) to $+1.00$ (complete value congruence).
  • Dimensional Subscale Scoring: Dimensional subscale scores for the seven identified factors (e.g., Innovation, Stability, Detail) can be computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the category values (1 to 9) assigned to the core items loading on that specific factor.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 1991 (Preliminary foundations established in Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990; Chatman, 1989).
• Copyright Holder: Academy of Management (© 1991). Original publication: Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 487–516.
• Academic Research Permissions: The 54 individual value items are published in the open scientific literature within the appendix of the 1991 foundational paper. Bona fide academic researchers, doctoral scholars, and educational institutions are generally permitted to utilize the instrument for non-commercial scientific research, thesis dissertations, and academic studies under fair use conventions, provided full APA bibliographic citation is attributed to O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991).
• Commercial and Consulting Usage Fees: Commercial applications, including corporate consulting engagements, proprietary executive diagnostics, commercial SaaS assessment implementations, and reproduction in fee-charging personnel selection platforms, require formal licensing agreements and permissions through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) or direct written authorization from the Academy of Management.

References

• Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.648
• Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0081
• Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.546
• Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279063
• Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be? Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 522–553. https://doi.org/10.5465/256700
• Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. Oxford University Press.
• O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/256404
• Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., Densten, I. L., & Cooper, B. (2005). The Organizational Culture Profile revisited and revised: An Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Management, 30(1), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/012929860503000109
• Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x
• Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 1036–1056. https://doi.org/10.5465/256539
• Vandenberghe, C. (1999). Organizational culture, person-culture fit, and turnover: A replication in the health care industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<175::AID-JOB898>3.0.CO;2-E

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)