Culture versus climate
Overview
When working in organisations, people naturally refer to their social context using language such as ‘atmosphere’, ‘work environment’ or ‘culture’. However, to many experienced professionals, the idea of trying to address culture is a thankless and fruitless endeavour that was once described to us as: ‘like trying to nail ice-cream to the wall.’ As a result, when thoughts in projects turn to improving or changing the culture, people tend to groan and drag their heels. The very thought of addressing culture makes people’s heart sink.
Despite this, during the the early stages of many projects, people identify ‘culture’ as one of the key challenges. We all know there is something important there that we need to deal with, but we are not sure how to address it.
This article provides a summary of the relationship between climate and culture and how we need to attend to updating our knowledge, frame of mind and language to be focused on climate – not culture.
Useful distinctions between climate and culture
When thinking about our surroundings, environment or context, there are a couple of distinctions that are worth remembering. The first is the difference between your physical surroundings and the psychological atmosphere. Physical surroundings are on the whole a hygiene factor. That means that the physical surroundings need to be good enough and if they aren’t, then people can be highly de-energised. However, spending loads making your surroundings fabulous will not motivate people – we know this from Herzberg’s 1960s research.
The psychological atmosphere or climate is very different. The better the climate is…
the more energised we are
the more engaged we are
the more productive we are
the more creative we are
the more we learn.
There is a library of research showing the impact of climate.
Whilst the terms culture and climate are often used interchangeably, and they are certainly connected (Denison, 1998, Academy of Management Review), there are three differences between them that are very insightful and useful to know about.
Culture is a broader concept than climate which tends to refer to an entire organisation, country or people. Whereas, if you attend to climate it is much more situational – so you can use individuals and their perceptions of a meeting, project, team, department or other units of analysis. For example, we might refer to the good atmosphere of a meeting, but we wouldn’t ever say ‘that meeting had a great culture’. The word climate is borrowed from the world of weather to reflect the localised nature of weather patterns. Climate is situational. The relationship between culture and climate can be likened to a tree – climate is represented by the parts above ground that are observable, while culture is represented by the roots below ground that are the hidden elements of an organisation, such as values and beliefs.
Culture is descriptive, meaning that one culture and its underlying assumptions and values are no better or worse than any other culture.
Climate is normative, meaning that we are looking for factors in the environment that either help or hinder people. With climate, the more we perceive certain factors, the better. For example, you will have been to a meeting where you thought there was a good atmosphere, lots of energy and where people felt safe to speak up. You will also have been to meetings where there was a poor climate, low energy and people kept quiet due to fear.
Climate is quantifiable, measurable and worth measuring. We want our environment to be filled with energy – not dread.Climate is distinct from culture in that it is more easily observable and more amenable to improvement efforts. For example, imagine trying to change the culture of your organisation or the UK or China. What are you changing from and to? What we want is to leave our culture alone and create a great climate. Climate is improvable.
Using these distinctions
The usefulness of these three distinctions was most profoundly brought home to us when someone from Dubai asked us:
‘Are you saying that we do not have to change our culture? We can leave our culture as is and focus on climate when we need to improve areas such as creativity and innovation?’
Our response was, of course, ‘Yes.’ Climate is connected to culture, but it is not the same as culture. Whereas culture is difficult to change, climate is definable, measurable and improvable.
Climate refers to the everyday patterns of behaviour that characterise life in a particular context like a team, department or organisation. Climate is the environment ‘pressing’ on us – the everyday practices that create the ‘atmosphere’. It is this atmosphere that presses on us and either focuses and motivates behaviour or distracts and demotivates. Without changing this, there can be no sustainable change. It is what we know to be important but used to be invisible. As Göran Ekvall (1996, Journal of work and organisational psychology) discovered:
‘No single separate influence produces a more lasting effect on behaviour and feelings than the daily exposure to a particular psychological atmosphere.’
Climate can be repeatedly, explicitly and deliberately influenced by our actions.
Rate your environment
Based on over 30 years’ research, there are nine dimensions of climate. Each of the following questions assesses one of the nine dimensions of climate. Although the full questionnaire called the Situational Outlook Questionnaire® (SOQ) is far more complete and accurate, thinking about these questions can be helpful. As you read each question, consider how your team, project or organisation might answer them on a scale of 1 (a little) to 5 (a lot).
Challenge and Involvement: How challenged, emotionally involved and committed am I to the work?
Freedom: How free am I to decide how to do my job?
Trust and Openness: Do people feel safe in speaking their minds and openly offering different points of view?
Idea-Time: Do we have time to think things through before having to act?
Playfulness and Humour: How relaxed is our workplace – is it OK to have fun?
Conflict: To what degree do people engage in interpersonal conflict or ‘warfare?’
Idea-Support: Do we have a few resources to give new ideas a try?
Debate: To what degree do people engage in lively debates about the issues?
Risk-Taking: Is it OK to fail when trying new things?
Many technically trained people tend to think that the only important stuff is the ‘hard stuff’, and they tend to dismiss the ‘soft stuff’ as unimportant, unnecessary and at best, elusive. However, research shows that it is the ‘hard stuff’ that is easy, and the ‘soft stuff' that is hard. Although both are needed, we are finding that much more attention needs to be paid to the ‘soft stuff’ once a minimal level of ‘hard’ resources are available.
Visit our toolkit to find out more about the SOQ.
If you have questions about the SOQ or about improving your organisational climate, please contact us.