In his preface to this Handbook, Edgar Schein notes an “obsession with proving that climate and culture make a difference to human well-being and organizational performance.” This “obsession” is arguably much less visible in the Part III chapters as compared to the chapters in Part II. Both parts share a focus on socialorganizational processes. Part III chapters are best described as state-of-the-art reviews; they are less explicit in regard to the potential power of the positive and they contain more positivism. In the Part III chapters, authors show academic rigor, analytical distance as well as human insight into culture and climate. Comparing Part II and Part III chapters, we note a particular sense of balance in the current state-of-the-field. What do I mean by this balance? Allow me to explain. Both parts together show that we have in our midst not only texts on cultureclimate approached with scientific distance (something that the authors of all Handbook chapters amply demonstrate), but also views on human culture and climate (evolvement) from engaged or clearly articulated normative or practical perspectives of proven scientific use. This particular sense of balance in the field of organizational culture and climate attests to its collective intelligence coming of age.

Part III opens with a chapter by Sonja Sackmann, who reviews 55 recent empirical studies on the organizational culture-performance link and concludes,“Most studies found a direct linear relationship between organizational culture and performance.” Moreover, she found that “certain kinds of culture orientations have a positive effect on financial as well as nonfinancial performance measures”(cf. Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2009). And, guess what? Sackmann’s summary of the cultural content that render high organizational performance points to positive cultures:“Among them are the more open, adaptive, outside-, customer-, mission-or goal-, achievement-, competitive-, people-, innovative-, and quality-oriented cultures.” And another conclusion, such as the abandonment of the ill-defined yet popular notion of culture strength, coincides with other recent critiques of this notion (see, eg, Ford, Wilderom, & Caparella, 2008; as well as Hartnell and Walumbwa in this part of