One of the topics that has been generating the most interest among scholars of the modern company is that of the organizational climate. And curiously one of the aspects that tends to be most overlooked when dealing with this matter is the one that has to do with its definition. Although it may not seem like it, this angle of the matter is of paramount importance since from how it is conceived it can be explained and even try actions for its modification or change for the better.
The organizational climate points to what happens in a clearly discernible entity, department or company. Secondly, this organization carries out various activities and generates various information that can be useful to draw conclusions about its climate. Consequently, the climate can be broken down into structural characteristics, organizational dimensions, leadership styles, etc.
At this point, two approaches should be alluded to which have also contributed to the construction and understanding of the concept of climate. The Gestalt approach holds that people act in the world according to their perception or interpretation of it. That is, the perception of the environment has a great influence on the practical action of people. For its part, the functionalist approach affirms that people are not passive entities. On the contrary, with their actions they contribute to the modification of their environment.
Climate also involves two fundamental aspects of human organizations. First, its physical structure, which includes characteristics such as control, size, hierarchical levels, centralization, departmentalization, and others. Second, its organizational or human processes, such as leadership, communication, control, etc.
As core characteristics of the organizational climate, Silva (1996) notes the following:
1. It is external to the individual,
2. It surrounds him but is different from the subject's perceptions,
3. It exists in the organization,
4. It can be registered through various procedures,
5. It is different from the organizational culture.
Another characteristic that is frequently cited by specialists who analyze the climate refers to its effect on people. In other words, directly and indirectly it has consequences for the actions of the members of the organization. Remember that the climate is born precisely from the interaction between people.
Definitions of climate
As for the definitions of organizational climate, these are grouped into three positions or approaches (Silva, 1996).
Objective or objectivist definitions privilege an understanding of climate as a mere set of tangible organizational characteristics that influence the behavior of its members (Brunet 2004). Mañas, González and Peiró (1999) call this the structural approach to climate formation. For this approach, the climate exists in a tangible way and external to the individuals who are exposed to it and only perceive it. Together, the members of the organization have similar perceptions of their work environment. When questioned about it, they reproduce it without modification or processing.
The subjective or subjectivist definitions, which understand the climate as personal perceptions of the members of an organization. With this perspective, a position as extreme as the previous one is assumed. That is, the climate depends on the state of mind of those who live it and, therefore, it would be mutable, unreliable and perhaps even unapproachable. Mañas et al. (1999) call it a perceptual approach to climate formation, while privileging the subjective. Climate, from this perspective, is an individual or personal description of the organizational environment.
Third, the integrative definitions that conceive of the climate as the result of the interaction between the physical characteristics of the organization and the personal characteristics of the individuals that comprise it. It is the individuals in their interaction with each other and with the environment that give rise to the consensus on the climate.
Méndez Álvarez (2006) presents a suggestive and complete definition of climate:
"The proper environment of the organization, produced and perceived by the individual according to the conditions found in their process of social interaction and in the organizational structure that is expressed by variables (objectives, motivation, leadership, control, decision making, interpersonal relationships (,) cooperation) that guide their belief, perception, degree of participation and attitude determining their behavior, satisfaction and level of efficiency at work ”(Méndez Álvarez, 2006: 108).
Definition of concepts: Climate and culture
Scholars like Katz and Kahn (1999) take climate and culture as synonyms. In trying to distinguish it from organizational culture, other authors point out that the climate is at a lower level, because it is immersed in it. Culture influences, guides, trains and informs (Silva, 1996). As Palma (2004) points out, if culture is the collective construction of abstract meanings, the climate would be, consequently, the perception or interpretation of workers regarding these assumptions about their workplace.
Alonso, Sánchez, Tejero and Retama (2000) thus appreciate the difference: climate is the organizational characteristics that workers collectively perceive and describe; while culture is the set of shared norms and learned behaviors that shape the way people act. They also refer that the climate is subjective, temporary and manipulable. Culture, on the other hand, has a long elaboration or processing by the group, has roots in the history of the group, is a phenomenon of longer duration and less vulnerable to manipulation. Furthermore, these authors highlight the fact that in their research, climate and culture, measured with separate questionnaires, point to different phenomena and clearly distinguishable by their evaluated (Alonso, Sánchez, Tejero and Retama, 2000).
Denison (1996), after carrying out a careful examination of both concepts, concludes that despite their different historical origin, in the investigations of recent years, both entities are approaching and even exchanging approaches. The exclusivity of the quantitative methodology can no longer be attributed to climate studies, nor the qualitative one to works on culture.
Denison (1996) ends by stating that the difference would be more apparent than real. And that both concepts address the same thing: “the creation and influence of social contexts in organizations” (Denison, 1996: 227).
An organizational climate model
Dessler (1979) highlights the ubiquity of the organizational climate with respect to other organizational factors. When studied as an independent or causal variable, it has been found that it affects the motivation, satisfaction and performance of staff. Considered as an intervening variable, the climate mediates between specific leadership and appreciation for work and employee performance. Focused as a dependent variable, empirical evidence proves that factors such as leadership style or organizational structure significantly influence it.
In the first instance, the climate is marked by the leadership style. The climate, as a transmitter of such management style, generates certain effects on people, read workers. The same climate can produce consequences on the motivation and satisfaction of said personnel. And finally, motivation and satisfaction powerfully influence employee performance.
Characteristics and dimensions of the organizational climate
Numerous authors have sought to identify, within the organizational climate, a series of elements, contents or, more properly, certain dimensions. Brunet (2004) presents 12 groups of dimensions identified in the same number of investigations by their authors. Silva (1996) goes further and summarizes 25 groups of dimensions determined in as many studies.
Despite the multiplicity of sets of dimensions, which often lead to multiple climate questionnaires, it is essential to seek consensus or reach a core of dimensions in common. Brunet (2004) and Silva (1996) cite Campbell, who considers that a climate questionnaire should contemplate the following basic dimensions:
1. Individual autonomy: That refers to the responsibility, independence and decision-making power enjoyed by the subject in his organization.
2. Degree of structure of the position: That points to the way in which the objectives and work methods are established and transmitted to the staff.
3. Reward: Referred to the economic aspects and the possibilities of promotion.
4. Consideration, thanks and support: Relative to the ways in which the employee receives stimuli from his superiors.
References
ALONSO, E., SANCHEZ, J., TEJERO, B. and RETAMA, M. (2000), Climate and culture of work teams. Two working constructs. In: AGULLO, E., REMESEIRO, C. and FERNANDEZ, J., Psychology of work, organizations and human resources. New approaches. Madrid: New Library. Pp. 340-343.
BRUNET, L. (2004), The work climate in organizations. Mexico: Trillas.
DESSLER, G. (1979), Organization and administration. Cali: Prentice-Hall.
Denison, D. (1996), What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review 3, 619-654.
FURNHAM, A. (2001), Organizational Psychology. Mexico: Oxford University Press.
GIBSON, J., IVANCEVICH, J. and DUNNELLY, J. (1993), Organizations. Mexico. McGraw-Hill
KATZ, D. and KAHN, R. (1999), Social Psychology of Organizations. Mexico: Trillas.
KOLB, D., RUBIN, I. and McINTYRE, J. (1977), Psychology of organizations. Madrid: Prentice-Hall International.
LEVERING, R. (1993), A great place to work. Buenos Aires: Javier Vergara, Editor.
MANAGEMENT SCIENCES FOR HEALTH (2002), How to create a work climate that motivates staff and improves their performance. In: Actualidad Gerencial Vol 11, Nº 3. Boston. Pp. 1-22.
MAÑAS, A., GONZALEZ, V. and PEIRO, J. (1999), The climate of work teams: determinants and consequences. Almería: University of Almería.
MARTIN, M., GONZALEZ, A., TORREGO, J., and ARMENGOL, C. (2003), Work environment and effectiveness of educational centers: perceptions and results. Salamanca: University of Alcalá.
MENDEZ ALVAREZ, C. (2006), Organizational climate in Colombia. Bogotá: University of Rosario.
PALMA, S. (2004), CL-SPC Work Climate Scale. Lima: Cartolan.
PULIDO, C. (2003), Organizational climate: a measure of success. Lima: Athanor.
SILVA, M. (1996), The climate in organizations. Barcelona: EUB.
TORO, F. (2001), The organizational climate. Colombian companies profile. Chisel: Medellín.
