Introduction
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in organizations to pay attention to the human factor, that is, to the people who work in them. Awareness has been acquired that, in addition to remuneration, it is necessary to attend to the needs for participation in decision-making and to generate opportunities for personal fulfillment.
That is why the studies of organizational climate and satisfaction are so interesting. They allow employees to express their opinion about how the organization works and how they feel about it; They thus constitute an instrument of inquiry, which works under the premise that benefits are generated when corrective actions are implemented in the aspects that require it.
They also constitute an excellent mechanism to know, indirectly, how is the quality of management of the company; in fact, their results point to how the structural and static aspects (status variables) of the organization are working, and what happens on a day-to-day basis in relationships between people (dynamic variables).
One of the reasons for conducting climate diagnostics is that it is assumed that productivity depends on having harmonious relationships between people, and between management and workers. Kaplan and Norton (1997) indicate "Satisfied employees are a precondition for increased productivity, quick reaction, quality, and customer service" (p. 143).
This article presents the results of an investigation whose purpose was to show evidence of the existence of a close relationship between the organizational climate, satisfaction and productivity, and to establish some elements that can be used to improve the organizational climate, and indirectly, the productivity.
Methodology
In 2003, an organizational climate and satisfaction study was carried out in a banking entity in Venezuela. 56 agencies were included, located in different cities and towns, obtaining the following data for each one of them:
1. Overall results of the organizational climate and satisfaction study.
2. Results for each of the nine climate dimensions and the seven satisfaction components, as well as for the 64 items that make up the instrument.
3. Fulfillment of goals in the semester in which the study was carried out, that is, its productivity.
Banks are particularly interesting for conducting studies of this type, since the agencies are set to meet goals adapted to their characteristics and the potential of the market they serve. This allows comparability of results between different agencies, regardless of their size or location.
The diagnosis was made using the Inter-company Organizational Diagnosis survey (EDOI), designed by Psico Consult, which includes 64 items to evaluate two variables: Organizational Climate and Satisfaction. Climate is evaluated based on nine dimensions (each with six items): 1. Integration, 2. Achievement Orientation, 3. Communication, 4. Supervision, 5. Structure, 6. Conditions and Work Methods, 7. Training and Development, 8. Empowerment and 9. Trust. Job satisfaction is evaluated with 10 items and seven components: 1. Remuneration, 2. Recognition, 3. Development, 4. Pride - Identity, 5. Internal Environment, 6. Integration and 7. Labor Quality. The scale used is six levels, where 1 is the lowest and six is the highest.
This instrument, initially designed in 1999 for an intercompany benchmarking study, has made it possible to establish the best practices in organizational climate in Venezuela and other countries, and has shown a high level of reliability of internal consistency, test-retest, as well as a high level of content and factor validity.
Results
With the data from the 56 agencies, a series of statistical calculations were performed.
The first of them was to establish the correlation between the results of climate, satisfaction and productivity and to establish the percentage of variance “explained” of each of the variables with respect to its correlation (this is calculated by raising the correlation coefficient to the square and multiplying the result by 100). The results are seen in the following table.
| Productivity | ||
| Correlation | Percentage of Explained Variance | |
| Organizational climate | 0.376 | 14% |
| Work satisfaction | 0.486 | 24% |
Between climate, satisfaction and productivity, a statistically significant relationship was obtained, which means that a part of the variance of productivity between agencies is “explained” (statistically) by the variance in the climate and job satisfaction. A better climate and a higher level of satisfaction, a higher level of productivity and when the climate and satisfaction decrease, there is less productivity. It can also be seen that the satisfaction variable "explains" a greater variance of productivity than the climate.
Next, the productivity level of the agencies was analyzed, for which the 56 agencies were classified into three groups according to the score obtained on the scale of achievement of goals. Thus, three groups were obtained, one called Low, one Medium and one High.
The six agencies with the lowest performance scores, the six agencies closest to the average score, and the six agencies with the highest scores were then selected. For each of these 18 agencies, the average obtained in the 64 items of the survey of the organizational climate and job satisfaction study was calculated.
Then, for each item, the existing gap between the averages of the three groups of agencies was established. In this way, it was determined in which aspects of the evaluated climate and satisfaction the agencies differed and which items were associated with the levels of performance obtained.
19 items were identified that show a positive relationship with the degree of productivity of the agencies. In Table 2, they are presented grouped by dimensions, with the means (on a scale from 1 to 6) obtained by the three groups of agencies (low, medium and high). The gaps obtained when comparing these three groups are also included:
"Medium" agencies versus "Low" agencies (gap between group M and B)
"High" agencies versus "Medium" agencies (gap between group A and M)
"High" agencies versus "Low" agencies (gap between group A and B)
High gaps between groups can be interpreted as a causal relationship to the difference in productivity of the highest group. For example, the item "I am proud of the company's products and services" shows a gap of 0.74 points between Low and Medium agencies.
That is, in the Low group agencies, there is a statistically significant difference in the pride that their employees show in relation to the Medium group agencies; Although this element alone is not enough to explain the difference in productivity, the set of elements that differentiates the two constitutes a constellation that indicates a structural and dynamic functioning, a product of managerial management, more efficient in the Middle group agencies. in relation to the Low group.
This difference in management and the synergy it produces in human talent, allows us to explain the difference in productivity; Or, at least, it allows hypothesis about what generates this higher productivity.
The items that make the difference between the agencies of the Low group and those of the Medium group are:
I feel that the staff is committed to the success of the company.
I take pride in the company's products and services.
I am satisfied with the environment of the company.
Receive the necessary training to do your job.
The joint reading of these four items indicates that it is essential, in order to go from being a low performance agency to a medium performance one, to attend to aspects that have to do with commitment, pride in services and products, the environment general organization and training for work.
The items that “explain” the difference between the agencies of the Medium group and those of the High group are:
Your supervisor supports you in overcoming obstacles that come your way.
Your supervisor cares about your success at work.
Your supervisor acknowledges you for your accomplishments.
Your supervisor promotes the training you need.
Your supervisor listens to your ideas.
High levels of performance are valued.
I feel that my achievements at work are being recognized.
There are opportunities to advance in the company.
Their working conditions are adequate.
I feel that my remuneration is competitive in relation to other companies.
The first seven items are closely related to what the supervisor does on a day-to-day basis, which is why we have called it the “supervisor's promoting role”. The other three items are generated by the organization in general and promote “staff satisfaction”. Note that personal and professional fulfillment acquires particular significance here, as well as remuneration.
Overall, we can see that to go from medium to high level, it is necessary to have a supervisor who encourages staff, generates support and listens to their proposals, as well as opportunities for advancement and remuneration.
Five items show the same gaps for the agencies of the Low and Medium group, as for the agencies of the Medium group in relation to the High. Those items are:
Each employee believes that it is key to the success of the company.
I feel that I am paid according to my performance and achievements.
The company promotes the development of its people.
I feel that this company is an option to achieve a high quality of life at work.
I get support from the company when I need it.
These items show actions or conditions that are required regardless of the agency's productivity level; they constitute a constant in the organization.
When we analyze the items that differentiate agencies with a Low performance level from those with Medium performance and those that differentiate those with a Medium level from those with a High level, and we try to imagine the type of organization that each one is, we can conclude that people who work in the most productive agencies act differently than those who work in lower-level agencies.
In this sense, interviews carried out in different organizations throughout Psico Consult's seven years of benchmarking work show that people show that they want to:
1. Be taken into account in their opinions and ways of perceiving the organization.
2. To be recognized as people and as an important element of the organization's activities.
3. Feel that they are successful, for which they need to receive training, know what to do and have a certain margin to participate in solving problems.
4. Feeling good with co-workers and being able to interact with people of higher hierarchical level.
5. Feel that they can grow personally and professionally, as they are presented with achievable challenges at their level and that opportunities are offered to develop.
6. Receive competitive compensation at the level and position in which they perform.
7. Feeling that they are part of something bigger, an organization that gives meaning to what they do on a daily basis.
The importance of the supervisor and his advocacy role thus emerges more clearly. The supervisor, through his actions, transmits relevant information about the organization, its mission and its vision. In addition, it provides support and training, ensuring success at work, listening to the team and seeking solutions to problems. Finally, it encourages teamwork and integration into the organization.
This is, in general, a complex but necessary task, which demands that promotions to supervisory work fall precisely on those who have the greatest competence and capacity to generate an environment conducive to work success and attend to human talent in their development.
On the other hand, some conditions in organizations generate the opposite action in the integration of people and the generation of organizational synergy.
One of them is the exaggerated emphasis on production and regulations, without a balance in the personal attention of those who work there and the promotion of creativity. Structures with emphasis on hierarchy, more than on relationships between people, are also counterproductive and negative for individual development and team integration (see Rodríguez Trujillo, N, 2005)
Bibliography and sources consulted
Buckingham, Marcus; Coffman C. (2000). First, break all the rules. Bogota Norma Editorial Group.
Kaplan, RS; Norton, DP (1997). The Balanced Scorecard: The Balance Score Card. Barcelona, Management 2000.
Rodríguez T., Nelson. (2005). This company is yours: the motivational power of organizational diagnosis. Benchmarking 2005 Presentation, Caracas June 15, 2005.
