Due right away

122 MANAGING FOR PERFORMANCE

insight into their similarities and differences, but

more work remains to be done to fully under- stand their value to organizational performance (Aarons & Sawitzky, 2006).

This chapter defines organizational climate as

a property of the individual (perception) that is

shared by other individuals in the same work environment. That is, organizational climate is

the shared perceptions that employees have of the psychological impact that their work envi-

ronment has on those who work there. In contrast, culture is defined as i property of the collective social system. It comprises the norms and expectations of that social system that drive

the way things are done in the organization. These norms and expectations include how employees interact, how they approach their work, and what work behaviors are emphasized

in the organization through rewards and sanc- tions. Thus, culture captures patterns of social interactioh and behavior, and climate caPtures

the personal meaning that individual workers give to those interactions and behaviors for their

own well-being and functioning. It would be misleading to imply that there is

widespread agreement on the distinction made here between climate and culture. Both climate

and culture have been described in the literature at one time or another as properties of the orga-

nization and as properties of the individual. However, as described in the next section, a review of the history of the development of the

two constructs offers suPport for the distinction

made here. The key to understanding the distinc-

tion is found in the roles that perception and behavior play in climate and culture, respectively.

The norms and expectations of the organiza-

tion as a social system reflect its culture, guide the

way things are done in the organization, and establish what is most important in the work of the organization. When we ask individuals in an

organization to describe their organizational activities and interactions, we are attemPting to

understand the behavioral norms and expecta-

tions established in the organization. If workers in

the same organization agree that a particular norm

or expectation characterizes their organization,

we conclude that it is a part of that organizationt

culture. Here, we could use a measure of in

rater agreement among respondents to a whether we are indeed tapping a cultural di

sion that members agree is characteristic of

organization. If there is disagreement among

respondents about a certain norm or tion, then we would conclude that that norm

expectation is not characteristic of the organi

liqn'5 guhuls-or perhaps that there are multi subcultures.

In contrast, when we define organizati climate as shared perceptions' we are not

the term shared to refer to interrater The construct we are measuring is an indivi

property, similar to asking whether

experience the temperature of a room as comfortable, or cold. If most respondents hot, but others feel comfortable, we don't

Ienge the acctJracy of the perceptions of who feel comfortable. Those who are

able are merely experiencing the te

the room differently from those who feel

even if we characterize the temperature of room as hot for most resPondents, we

conclude that others do truly feel com because the characteristic we are remains a property of the individual. It is

sense that climate remains a property of

vidual, whether there is agreement or di

ment among the respondents' perceptions

work environment.

The History of Culture and Climate as Organizational Constructs

Organizational Climate: 1 950s-

Although climate and culture are

mentioned in tandem (AshkanasY,

Peterson, 2000; Barker, L994; HoY, ]99A,

1990; Schneider, 1990; Schneider, G

Niles-]olly, 1994; Verbeke et al., 1998),

vidual histories within the organizati ture are quite distinct (Denison, 1996;

:, 199(r _ Cft foEmffir.- -{rti.lE or:sarreanimd puform e (

ffids-darkpnf mrr.+ goup dr-nc

tr i#rn5b6 ltnltllttlerie*inke

ftflllrmeti fttod

Igf*]r" uhm ryecitO l*gi',"ie

-4iifi'Frsrfte &u ar.ridca

, * &, llefi (-*wrr"&tl

& Iilt*"rdd.r I&mietr' f9

rlir[*E dmi$ ra

dr lrtueto6d

d0 fln

"'" -. @iftLr l rtrlTi[

rin rudbd ItG]

d uh pmdoi

amn&r

rT

cE

m

[ffi,r nfiilm*ilrd

[,rh