Overlap and Confusion Between Culture and Climate

Although researchers traditionally made theoretical distinc­tions between culture and climate, a number of recent articles have been devoted to what, if any, is the difference between these two concepts (cf. Dennison, 1996; Payne, 2000; Reichers & Schnieder, 1990; Trice & Beyer, 1993). Schein (2000) notes that in much of the popular management press, the term culture is often used when an examination of what is being said indicates that climate is the more appropriate term. We believe the root cause for the blurring of culture and cli­mate stems not so much from theoretical treatments as from empirical attempts to assess the constructs.

Traditionally, culture was studied with qualitative method-ologies using case studies, whereas climate research has been largely quantitative and survey based, asking employees about their perceptions of the organizational context. However, although early work in culture and climate retained a clear dis­tinction between the two constructs both theoretically and methodologically, in more recent years, many empirical cul­ture studies have become virtually indistinguishable from traditional climate research (Dennison, 1996; Hofstede, 1998).

Two types of studies have contributed to the overlap be­tween climate and culture. First, during the 1990s, a number of quantitative culture studies began appearing, using a survey-based methodology much like that used in climate studies (e.g., Chatman, 1991; Cooke & Szumal, 1993) and often

576 Organizational Culture and Climate

focusing on the same dimensions originally investigated in climate research (e.g., support, achievement, innovation). Many of the items in such so-called culture surveys are often very similar to items in climate surveys (Hofstede, 1998; Payne, 2000). In the culture literature, these dimensions (e.g., support, innovation, achievement) are often referred to as val­ues, while in the climate literature they are often referred to as climate dimensions or the organizational context. We argue that, in these studies, the why of culture and the what of climate are not clearly distinguished.

The second research stream that has contributed to the blur­ring of these constructs involves culture studies that focus on quantitative assessments of perceptions of organizational practices (e.g., Christensen & Gordon, 1999; Hofstede, 1998; Hofstede et al., 1990). Here, it appears that researchers are using practices and procedures as a proxy of sorts for cultural assumptions, in that, based on practices, one can infer the cul­ture. However, the items and dimensions assessed in these studies are often very similar to traditional climate research and more closely resemble climate as the perceptions of prac­tices, policies, and procedures.

These types of studies tend to focus on what Schein (1992) terms artifacts and represent an overlap between research in climate and in culture. Although Schein (2000) explicitly defines climate as a cultural artifact resulting from espoused values and shared tacit assumptions, we argue, similar to oth­ers (e.g., Moran & Volkwein, 1992), that artifacts are the over­lapping area between climate, as perceptions of practices, and culture, as deep-rooted assumptions and values. The focus on broad dimensions (e.g., risk-taking, supportiveness) or orga­nizational practices represents the more artifact or surface as­pects of culture but does not always clearly reflect underlying meaning or summary perceptions based on policies, practices, and procedures.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 733