Two studies explored issues related to the content and structure of psychological climate: First, confirmatory analyses of self-report climate survey data examined the James and James (1989) hierarchical model of psychological climate and three alternatives to their notion of a general factor underlying climate perceptions (PC\sbg). These archival data (N = 8109) were obtained from multiple locations of a government R&D organization. Second, a modified version of Kelly's (1955) repertory grid technique was used to identify the personal constructs that individuals use to interpret organizational events and assess their correspondence with current models of psychological climate. Participants (N = 27), from the organization in study one, elicited 213 personal constructs from meaningful organizational events. They then rated the similarity of their constructs with thirty reference dimensions derived from previous research. Confirmatory analyses, conducted in study one, were somewhat supportive of the James and James hierarchical model of psychological climate. However, the best fitting model suggests that their hierarchical structure may be due to either a methodological artifact or a form of response bias. Alternative models, positing that responses to climate surveys are driven by respondents' level of satisfaction and that PC\sbg and satisfaction are redundant were not supported. Results of study two indicate that the general factor (PC\sbg) underlying hierarchical models may actually represent an assessment of the work environment in terms of one's level of personal control rather than the impact to one's well-being. The constructs that individuals use to interpret organizational events, as elicited in study two, are consistent with the dimensions identified in prior climate research. Factor analyses of individuals' personal constructs indicate that they can be grouped according to the following dimensions: job autonomy and personal control; rewards and recognition; job challenge and skill development; group interaction and cooperation; satisfaction; clarity of organization roles and procedures; employee's impact; impact to one's well-being; quality of supervision; organizational politics; and organizational support. In addition, these data suggest that previous distinctions between psychological climate and satisfaction, based on cognition and affect, have been overly restrictive and should be reexamined. Implications for future research are discussed.