A complementary marriage of perspectives: understanding organizational social context using mixed methods

Table 4 Qualitative constructs stratified by “best,” “average,” and “worst” Organizational Social Context agencies

Theme	Worst (Nagencies)	Average (Nagencies)	Best (Nagencies)	Total number of agencies where construct was observed
Affect	8	3	5	16
Culture/diversity	1	0	1	2
Distrust	5	2	0	7
Engagement	2	0	0	2
Functionality	11	5	7	23
Initiatives	6	4	4	14
Leadership	10	5	7	22
Physical space	11	5	7	23
Proficiency	9	4	3	16
Resistance	3	0	1	4
Rigidity	6	3	4	13
Stress	9	3	3	15

We used latent profile analysis (LPA) which uses all six dimensions of culture and climate simultaneously to categorize the organizations into “best”, “average,” and “worst” organizational social contexts. This table provides information on our mixed-methods analysis. Each row represents a construct from our qualitative analysis and provides information on how many of each type of agency (“best”, “average,” and “worst” organizational social context) demonstrated evidence of each construct. For example, the construct “affect,” was observed in five of the agencies with “best” organizational social context, three of the agencies with “average” organizational social context, and eight of the agencies with “worst” organizational social context. In the final column, the total number of agencies that a construct was observed within is detailed, so affect was observed in 16/23 of the agencies.

ISSN: 1748-5908