Change initiatives that fail have often ignored the

subtle yet vital difference between organizational

culture and organizational climate. Here, Eli Sopow
distinguishes between the two and reflects on the
impact of each on change programs. The key, he says,
is to change the day-to-day practices that contribute
to the overall climate, while holding onto the positive
elements of culture that make employees feel secure.

The impact of culture and

climate on change programs
Distinguishing between culture and
climate to change the organization
By Eli Sopow, Ph.D.

he failure of many corporate change

processes can often be linked to a
misunderstanding of the very distinct yet
interrelated roles of culture and climate within
the organization. Heres an example.
A few years ago, a number of small financial
institutions in Canada decided they would try
and pool their resources and create a much larger
national bank. The idea, which made great
business sense and seemed very well planned,
soon failed. There were all manner of technical
reasons given for the failure, but a major reason
was a clash of culture and climate.
The long-standing culture of the individual
financial institutions was deeply rooted in local
community control with each customer being an
official voting shareholder with plenty of say in
how the institution supported such things as
community projects. What I found as a
consultant to the senior transition team was that
many customers and even some managers saw

14

the idea of a giant national bank being created

from this grass-roots organizational structure, as
anathema to everything they believed in.
Changing the climate of how everyday business
was conducted was one thing changing the
culture was something quite different for those
who had both a financial and personal
relationship with their local institution.

Culture verses climate

An organizations culture is its deeply rooted
traditions, values, beliefs and sense-of-self. An
organizations climate, on the other hand, is the
here and now. It includes rules and regulations,
communication models, employee incentives and
other key factors that speak to both the emotional
and knowledge needs of employees. In my
experience and research, Ive found that up to 80
percent of organizational climate is influenced
by deeply imbedded organizational culture.
Within organizational culture is embedded a
number of historical and developmental factors.
Historical factors include long-established notions
of trust, rituals and often leadership and
management models. Developmental factors
include experiences and lessons learned over
many years that often get translated into standard
operating procedures, plus rules, regulations and
scm
Volume 10, Issue 6 October/November 2006

responses based on past crises and conflicts. Most

corporate structures and management systems
today are based on an organizations historical
and developmental factors its culture that in
turn create the day-to-day climate.
For example, a financial institution has a
culture of trust and most likely an organizational
structure thats more traditional and conservative
in design than, by comparison, a technology
company where history, lessons learned and
leadership styles are quite different.

Positive verses negative culture

A common characteristic of humans is that we
like to feel safe and have boundaries in our lives
that contribute to that safety. A positive
organizational culture often provides that sense
of security and stability. Fear comes from having
a sense of powerlessness and the unknown.
Organizational culture with its deep roots in a
well-defined past and its sense of predictability
based on past behavior and lessons learned can
give employees a sense of empowerment and
knowledge and most importantly, a sense of
safety and security.
But there are also negative organizational
cultures where the interests of employees,
customers and investors are second to other
corporate and leadership/management interests
including personal profit and egoaggrandizement. Such a culture usually leads to a
toxic workplace environment and rather than
instilling a sense of stability and security, the
outcome is usually a climate of fear.
Such a dysfunctional culture usually begets an
organizational structure with very centralized
reporting lines, little sharing of authority and
asymmetrical top-down communication more
intent on telling than sharing or listening. In
such cases, organizational climate the here and
now of how things are done is almost
exclusively dictated by culture and extremely
difficult to change in any substantial way.

Benefits of a healthy culture

Experience shows that change is easier to
implement within organizational cultures that are
supportive of employees and foster enlightened
leadership and management structures, than in
toxic cultures. Healthy organizational cultures
usually create positive organizational climatic
conditions that, while still somewhat resistant to
change, are far more adaptable to new ways of
doing things due to heightened levels of trust and
effective communication. Conversely, within an
unhealthy organizational culture, there are high
scm
October/November 2006 Volume 10, Issue 6

Eli Sopow, P.h.D is head of strategic communications and research at the

Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Pacific Region. He has 35 years of experience in
organizational communication and management. He teaches courses on organizational
systems and applied research, as well as change management and workplace wellness.

levels of mistrust, poor communication and

strong resistance to the unknown.
In such an unhealthy environment, employees
will often prefer a corporate culture with a less
than stellar record of treating people well, rather
than accept something which is better, but new
and unproven. The reason for this lies in simple
human nature that prefers the imperfect
predictable to the perfect unpredictable. Its this
devil we know mindset that makes even the
most positive change difficult to implement.

The devil we know

The danger of the above is well illustrated in my
experience with an idealistic new director of
communication for a large professional
association. His attempts to bring empowerment,
collegiality and what James Grunig1 calls a twoway symmetrical model of communication to
the association failed miserably. The professional
association was steeped in a culture of mistrust,
centralized leadership and secrecy. The attitude of
employees was tell me what to do and Ill do
it, plus I just want to do my job (and
conversely, thats not my job).
The new directors well-intentioned efforts at
changing the everyday climate was seen as an
assault on the long-established culture, not only
by senior management, but also by rank-and-file
employees. Senior executives bristled at their
traditional hierarchical structures being tinkered
with and employees also reacted in horror to the
idea of being given greater responsibility,
authority to make independent decisions and
having a direct say in setting strategy. Just tell
me what to do and Ill do it, was the corporate
mantra that had completely engulfed employees.

KEY POINTS:

Failure of corporate change processes can be largely due to a clash

of culture and climate. Culture refers to a companys deep-rooted
values and traditions while climate is its current practices.
Corporate change can make employees feel insecure, but its
important for employees to feel that they can be innovative and
adaptive without losing familiar and secure boundaries.
Successful change can be found by reframing the organizations
mindset, through adopting more holistic and networked systems,
and enhanced communication and cooperation. Change and
adaptability should become part of the corporate cultural values.

15

The impact of culture and climate on change programs

t The link between culture and trust

Besides having an effect on employee fears,

organizational culture also provides the necessary
ingredients for that vital cohesive corporate glue
called trust. What creates trust as studies of
this topic have found is shared values,
predictability, open communication, technical
competence, honesty and consistency. Those are
also the traits that develop and emerge from a
companys history and experiences that together
combine to form culture.
Corporate officials sometimes say that the goal
of an organizations change management
initiative is to change the culture. What they
usually mean is that they hope to create a new
and positive mindset that results in better
performance and an enhanced way of doing
things. However, what employees hear is that
those things that make them feel safe and provide
a sense of predictability are on the chopping
block. To many, changing the culture means
messing with tried-and-tested traditions and
ignoring many years of positive lessons learned.
Many change processes are met with strong
resistance because whats viewed as changing is
not only everyday actions associated with
organizational climate, but also strongly
entrenched anchors of security found in the
culture. By contrast, changing the organizational
climate is significantly easier and over time,
changes in the climate may change the culture.

Lessons learned at Greenpeace Canada

Changing environments is a necessary condition
of survival. The tricky part is to remain
adaptable and make the necessary changes to
organizational climate while at the same time not
severing ties with those important stabilizers
found in organizational culture.
Many years ago, Greenpeace Canada learned
the hard way about the perils of losing touch
Figure One: The Organizational Environment Index
CULTURE FACTORS

CLIMATE FACTORS

Personal rights and values are respected

Employees feel safe to express their views
Everyone is treated fairly
Mistakes are seen as learning not failure
New ideas are often encouraged
Management decision-making is trusted
There is clear accountability for actions
Lessons learned are part of new action
Employees feel hopeful about their future
Authority over actions is easily delegated

The organization values individual feedback

Employees can make independent decisions
Exceptional performance is acknowledged
The organization encourages teamwork
Continuous training is a top priority
Help/support for individuals is easily available
Organizational actions live up to promises
Important information is openly shared
There is clear responsibility for actions
Employees understand organizational goals

Low 1...2...3...4...5 High

Copyright: Sopow & Wilde

16

with its foundational culture. Founded in

Vancouver, Canada in the early 1970s, Greenpeace
soon became an international powerhouse of
environmental activism with an international head
office in Europe and branches throughout the
world. By the late 1990s, Greenpeace was also
seen by many original supporters as of all things
a multinational corporation that was out of
touch with its grass roots.
In my consulting work with Greenpeace
Canada it was quickly discovered that many of
the deep cultural values and definers of the
organizations personality were not as evident
to both long-time and potential supporters as
they once were. This distancing from the past
happened subtly and incrementally as changes to
the organizations climate how it operated on a
daily basis were made to keep pace with the
rapid growth of Greenpeace and its expanded
scope of influence.
After a series of focus groups and other
research leading to some honest introspection,
Greenpeace Canada took a number of steps to
reconnect to its roots, including enhanced
community and internal communication, a
revised approach to protest actions and other
steps that brought its organizational climate in
line with the best of its organizational culture.

Understanding culture and climate factors

For change initiatives to succeed there must be an
awareness of the major organizational culture
and climate factors, especially those culture
factors that are seen as having both a continuing
negative and positive influence on the
organization. Finding such factors can be
accomplished by holding focus groups and/or
individual interviews with employees at all levels
of the organization. The goal is to find out what
long-established organizational behaviors and
actions are giving people comfort in the
workplace, which instill a sense of security and
provide safe boundaries, and which continue to
impede adaptability and positive change.
Another way to unearth key organizational
culture and climate factors is by conducting a
more formalized employee survey that specifically
includes questions related to culture and climate,
that when combined, provides a good indication
of the organizations personality and
operational environment. Just like human
personalities, organizational personalities are
shaped by both hereditary and developmental
factors (the culture) that in turn influence the
design of organizational system structures that
shape daily behavior (the climate).
scm
Volume 10, Issue 6 October/November 2006

The impact of culture and climate on change programs

Measuring culture and climate

One way to measure corporate culture and
climate and assess the overall corporate
environment is to use the Organizational
Environment Index that I developed a number of
years ago (see Figure One, left). The index uses a
simple 1-5 scale to measure 10 factors commonly
associated with organizational culture and 10
factors commonly associated with organizational
climate. Besides being linked to culture and
climate, the factors are also related to what
creates trust within organizations.
Experience with the index shows that if the
culture factors score low then theres a very good
chance youll find a low score associated with the
climate factors. The reason for this is that
organizational culture shapes climate. For
example, if personal rights and values are not
well respected and there are low trust levels
(culture factors) then theres a strong likelihood
that employees wont be in a position to act
independently and important information wont
be openly shared (climate factors).
The index can also reveal where corporate
culture is strongest and therefore contributes to a
sense of trust and security. In such cases theres
also a likelihood that many climate factors will
also score higher on the index. Healthy corporate
environments generally score high on both the
culture and climate factors, while unhealthy
organizations score low on both.

Using an environment index at the RCMP

My experience with the index is that it can prove
to be a useful guide in managing a change
process. For example, in a department of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Pacific
Region, we first surveyed employees to get their
rating of culture and climate and then focused
heavily on where quick wins could be achieved in
a number of climate factors. Many of these were
directly linked to effective communication such
as important information is openly shared and
the organization values individual feedback.
Recommendations were made that involved
enhanced teamwork between different work
units, greater communication from supervisors to
employees, plus a system of recognition for
exemplary work. These and other
recommendations to climate factors were easy to
implement and were likely to produce early,
positive results. But as well as addressing some
climate changes, the process also made a priority
of recognizing the organizational culture.
There was strong acknowledgement in the
change process of what RCMP employees saw as
scm
October/November 2006 Volume 10, Issue 6

positive aspects of the organizational culture,

including its long history as a trusted Canadian
icon and the many varied international, national
and regional experiences gained over the years.
This information was gleaned not just from the
index, but also from interviews with employees.
Over time, the climate changes being
implemented may also create positive changes to
elements of the overarching culture that
employees see as being unproductive in a rapidly
changing world. The key words are over time.

Changing corporate culture

Based on my experiences, I suggest two things for
when planning a change process. The first is to
treat the corporate personality much like a human
personality. In my training as a counselor, I studied
Cognitive Restructuring Therapy that basically has
the patient break away from deeply embedded
negative thought processes by positively reframing
their emotions and viewpoint. Organizations can
also benefit from a reframed perspective.
If change processes are to work, then the
mindset of organizational personalities has to
break away from the mechanistic, command-andcontrol structures and linear planning associated
with old-style hereditary factors of corporate
culture. Organizations need to reframe their
notion of what constitutes an efficient structure.
Today, many corporations are doing just that by
adopting more holistic and networked systems
and looking at how adaptability can be achieved
through enhanced communication, connectivity
and cooperation.
My second suggestion involves the small-box
thinking that mechanistic organizational culture
locks people into. But rather than simply
advocating so called out-of-the-box thinking, I
suggest that organizations expand and build a
bigger box one that gives people room to safely
play with innovative ideas and a place to grow,
while still having familiar and secure boundaries.
This is what combining the best of culture with
positive enhancements to organizational climate
provides a bigger-box environment where
adaptability and change is accepted as a natural
part of growth and evolution. scm
James E. Grunig, Ph.D. is co-author of Managing Public
Relations and Public Relations Techniques and Managers Guide
to Excellence in PR and Communication Management.
1

CONTACT
Eli Sopow, P.h.D
Royal Canadian Mounted Police

e-mail:

[email protected]

17