Firstly, it should be pointed out the existence of two mutually exclusive schools of study of work climate: Dimensional approach: it is assumed that climate is a “multidimensional” perception, which would explain the variety of perceptions –by the variability in the development of each dimension- in the different areas of the organization according to their different circumstances.
Typological approach: in which the climate would have a total configuration, still integrated by different properties, which would explain the existence of a global macroclimate of the organization, and its inertia.
But in addition three types of climate must be distinguished:
- Climate of achievement Climate of affiliation Climate of power
Below are the six dimensions that must be considered when analyzing the work environment:
- Flexibility: the degree to which individuals perceive restrictions or flexibility in the organization, that is, to what extent the rules, policies, procedures or practices are unnecessary or interfere with the execution of the work. Also, it reflects the extent to which new ideas are accepted. Responsibility: the degree to which individuals perceive that authority is delegated to them and can carry out their jobs without having to constantly consult the supervisor and the extent to which they feel responsibility for the result lies with them. Rewards: the degree to which individuals perceive that they are recognized and rewarded for good work and that this relates to different levels of performance. Clarity: the degree to which individuals perceive that the goals, procedures, organizational structures and work flow are clearly defined, so that everyone knows what they have to do and in relation to the general objectives of the organization.
Another group of characteristics is the one that considers that the climate is made up of:
- Autonomy / Conflict Social relationships / Structure Quality of reward / reward Relationships performance / reward Motivation / Polarization of status (accentuation of inter-member limits) Flexibility / innovation Mutual support / mutual interest of members
Below are three examples from different companies:
A mass consumption multinational company (international study HayMcBer, 1993-95).
A study of managers of a multinational consumer products company demonstrated the relationship between positive climate and performance indicators.
At the beginning of the fiscal year, each manager was given financial goals for his unit.
The variable remuneration of the manager and that of his team was directly related to this performance measure. At the end of the fiscal year, it showed a positive correlation between climate dimensions and performance measures.
In other words, regardless of the country where the company will develop its business, the units that showed the best climate achieved better financial results.
A multinational petrochemical company (US study, HayMcBear, 1993). A study of the three main business units was carried out to identify development opportunities.
The climate of approximately 350 managers in various business units was measured and compared for two key performance variables: cash flow and net operating income.
The dimensions of the climate showed a strong correlation with both variables, since the units with the best climate turned out to be the ones with the best financial results and those with the worst climate, consequently achieving the worst business results.
LOMA CEOs (study conducted in the United States, 1994 HayMcBear).
In a study of the presidents of a leading company in the insurance sector, the climate that these managers generated in their collaborators was predictive of the performance of the organization in general. The company was divided into two groups: those with a positive climate and those with an average climate.
In this study, the climate variable was found to be predictive of high or low levels of performance by 69 percent. For specific variables, the accuracy increased to 75 percent.
