14The failure of many corporate changeprocesses can often be linked to amisunderstanding of the very distinct yetinterrelated roles of culture and climate withinthe organization. Heres an example.A few years ago, a number of small financialinstitutions in Canada decided they would tryand pool their resources and create a much largernational bank. The idea, which made greatbusiness sense and seemed very well planned,soon failed. There were all manner of technicalreasons given for the failure, but a major reasonwas a clash of culture and climate.The long-standing culture of the individualfinancial institutions was deeply rooted in localcommunity control with each customer being anofficial voting shareholder with plenty of say inhow the institution supported such things ascommunity projects. What I found as aconsultant to the senior transition team was thatmany customers and even some managers sawthe idea of a giant national bank being createdfrom this grass-roots organizational structure, asanathema to everything they believed in.Changing the climate of how everyday businesswas conducted was one thing changing theculture was something quite different for thosewho had both a financial and personalrelationship with their local institution.Culture verses climateAn organizations culture is its deeply rootedtraditions, values, beliefs and sense-of-self. Anorganizations climate, on the other hand, is thehere and now. It includes rules and regulations,communication models, employee incentives andother key factors that speak to both the emotionaland knowledge needs of employees. In myexperience and research, Ive found that up to 80percent of organizational climate is influencedby deeply imbedded organizational culture. Within organizational culture is embedded anumber of historical and developmental factors.Historical factors include long-established notionsof trust, rituals and often leadership andmanagement models. Developmental factorsinclude experiences and lessons learned overmany years that often get translated into standardoperating procedures, plus rules, regulations andVolume 10, Issue 6October/November 2006scmThe impact of culture andclimate on change programsChange initiatives that fail have often ignored thesubtle yet vital difference between organizationalculture and organizational climate. Here, Eli Sopowdistinguishes between the two and reflects on theimpact of each on change programs. The key, he says,is to change the day-to-day practices that contributeto the overall climate, while holding onto the positiveelements of culture that make employees feel secure.Distinguishing between culture andclimate to change the organizationBy Eli Sopow, Ph.D.15responses based on past crises and conflicts. Mostcorporate structures and management systemstoday are based on an organizations historicaland developmental factors its culture that inturn create the day-to-day climate.For example, a financial institution has aculture of trust and most likely an organizationalstructure thats more traditional and conservativein design than, by comparison, a technologycompany where history, lessons learned andleadership styles are quite different. Positive verses negative cultureA common characteristic of humans is that welike to feel safe and have boundaries in our livesthat contribute to that safety. A positiveorganizational culture often provides that senseof security and stability. Fear comes from havinga sense of powerlessness and the unknown.Organizational culture with its deep roots in awell-defined past and its sense of predictabilitybased on past behavior and lessons learned cangive employees a sense of empowerment andknowledge and most importantly, a sense ofsafety and security. But there are also negative organizationalcultures where the interests of employees,customers and investors are second to othercorporate and leadership/management interestsincluding personal profit and ego-aggrandizement. Such a culture usually leads to atoxic workplace environment and rather thaninstilling a sense of stability and security, theoutcome is usually a climate of fear. Such a dysfunctional culture usually begets anorganizational structure with very centralizedreporting lines, little sharing of authority andasymmetrical top-down communication moreintent on telling than sharing or listening. Insuch cases, organizational climate the here andnow of how things are done is almostexclusively dictated by culture and extremelydifficult to change in any substantial way. Benefits of a healthy cultureExperience shows that change is easier toimplement within organizational cultures that aresupportive of employees and foster enlightenedleadership and management structures, than intoxic cultures. Healthy organizational culturesusually create positive organizational climaticconditions that, while still somewhat resistant tochange, are far more adaptable to new ways ofdoing things due to heightened levels of trust andeffective communication. Conversely, within anunhealthy organizational culture, there are highlevels of mistrust, poor communication andstrong resistance to the unknown. In such an unhealthy environment, employeeswill often prefer a corporate culture with a lessthan stellar record of treating people well, ratherthan accept something which is better, but newand unproven. The reason for this lies in simplehuman nature that prefers the imperfectpredictable to the perfect unpredictable. Its thisdevil we know mindset that makes even themost positive change difficult to implement.The devil we knowThe danger of the above is well illustrated in myexperience with an idealistic new director ofcommunication for a large professionalassociation. His attempts to bring empowerment,collegiality and what James Grunig1calls a two-way symmetrical model of communication tothe association failed miserably. The professionalassociation was steeped in a culture of mistrust,centralized leadership and secrecy. The attitude ofemployees was tell me what to do and Ill doit, plus I just want to do my job (andconversely, thats not my job).The new directors well-intentioned efforts atchanging the everyday climate was seen as anassault on the long-established culture, not onlyby senior management, but also by rank-and-fileemployees. Senior executives bristled at theirtraditional hierarchical structures being tinkeredwith and employees also reacted in horror to theidea of being given greater responsibility,authority to make independent decisions andhaving a direct say in setting strategy. Just tellme what to do and Ill do it, was the corporatemantra that had completely engulfed employees.October/November 2006Volume 10, Issue 6scmEli Sopow, P.h.Dis head of strategic communications and research at theRoyal Canadian Mounted Police, Pacific Region. He has 35 years of experience inorganizational communication and management. He teaches courses on organizationalsystems and applied research, as well as change management and workplace wellness.KEY POINTS:! Failure of corporate change processes can be largely due to a clashof culture and climate. Culture refers to a companys deep-rootedvalues and traditions while climate is its current practices. Corporate change can make employees feel insecure, but itsimportant for employees to feel that they can be innovative andadaptive without losing familiar and secure boundaries. Successful change can be found by reframing the organizationsmindset, through adopting more holistic and networked systems,and enhanced communication and cooperation. Change andadaptability should become part of the corporate cultural values. q16The link between culture and trustBesides having an effect on employee fears,organizational culture also provides the necessaryingredients for that vital cohesive corporate gluecalled trust. What creates trust as studies ofthis topic have found is shared values,predictability, open communication, technicalcompetence, honesty and consistency. Those arealso the traits that develop and emerge from acompanys history and experiences that togethercombine to form culture.Corporate officials sometimes say that the goalof an organizations change managementinitiative is to change the culture. What theyusually mean is that they hope to create a newand positive mindset that results in betterperformance and an enhanced way of doingthings. However, what employees hear is thatthose things that make them feel safe and providea sense of predictability are on the choppingblock. To many, changing the culture meansmessing with tried-and-tested traditions andignoring many years of positive lessons learned. Many change processes are met with strongresistance because whats viewed as changing isnot only everyday actions associated withorganizational climate, but also stronglyentrenched anchors of security found in theculture. By contrast, changing the organizationalclimate is significantly easier and over time,changes in the climate may change the culture.Lessons learned at Greenpeace CanadaChanging environments is a necessary conditionof survival. The tricky part is to remainadaptable and make the necessary changes toorganizational climate while at the same time notsevering ties with those important stabilizersfound in organizational culture. Many years ago, Greenpeace Canada learnedthe hard way about the perils of losing touchwith its foundational culture. Founded inVancouver, Canada in the early 1970s, Greenpeacesoon became an international powerhouse ofenvironmental activism with an international headoffice in Europe and branches throughout theworld. By the late 1990s, Greenpeace was alsoseen by many original supporters as of all things a multinational corporation that was out oftouch with its grass roots.In my consulting work with GreenpeaceCanada it was quickly discovered that many ofthe deep cultural values and definers of theorganizations personality were not as evidentto both long-time and potential supporters asthey once were. This distancing from the pasthappened subtly and incrementally as changes tothe organizations climate how it operated on adaily basis were made to keep pace with therapid growth of Greenpeace and its expandedscope of influence. After a series of focus groups and otherresearch leading to some honest introspection,Greenpeace Canada took a number of steps toreconnect to its roots, including enhancedcommunity and internal communication, arevised approach to protest actions and othersteps that brought its organizational climate inline with the best of its organizational culture. Understanding culture and climate factorsFor change initiatives to succeed there must be anawareness of the major organizational cultureand climate factors, especially those culturefactors that are seen as having both a continuingnegative and positive influence on theorganization. Finding such factors can beaccomplished by holding focus groups and/orindividual interviews with employees at all levelsof the organization. The goal is to find out whatlong-established organizational behaviors andactions are giving people comfort in theworkplace, which instill a sense of security andprovide safe boundaries, and which continue toimpede adaptability and positive change.Another way to unearth key organizationalculture and climate factors is by conducting amore formalized employee survey that specificallyincludes questions related to culture and climate,that when combined, provides a good indicationof the organizations personality andoperational environment. Just like humanpersonalities, organizational personalities areshaped by both hereditary and developmentalfactors (the culture) that in turn influence thedesign of organizational system structures thatshape daily behavior (the climate).Volume 10, Issue 6October/November 2006scmtThe impact of culture and climate on change programsFigure One: The Organizational Environment IndexCULTURE 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 delegatedCLIMATE FACTORS 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 goalsLow1...2...3...4...5HighCopyright: Sopow & Wildepositive aspects of the organizational culture,including its long history as a trusted Canadianicon and the many varied international, nationaland regional experiences gained over the years.This information was gleaned not just from theindex, but also from interviews with employees. Over time, the climate changes beingimplemented may also create positive changes toelements of the overarching culture thatemployees see as being unproductive in a rapidlychanging world. The key words are over time.Changing corporate cultureBased on my experiences, I suggest two things forwhen planning a change process. The first is totreat the corporate personality much like a humanpersonality. In my training as a counselor, I studiedCognitive Restructuring Therapy that basically hasthe patient break away from deeply embeddednegative thought processes by positively reframingtheir emotions and viewpoint. Organizations canalso benefit from a reframed perspective.If change processes are to work, then themindset of organizational personalities has tobreak away from the mechanistic, command-and-control structures and linear planning associatedwith old-style hereditary factors of corporateculture. Organizations need to reframe theirnotion of what constitutes an efficient structure.Today, many corporations are doing just that byadopting more holistic and networked systemsand looking at how adaptability can be achievedthrough enhanced communication, connectivityand cooperation.My second suggestion involves the small-boxthinking that mechanistic organizational culturelocks people into. But rather than simplyadvocating so called out-of-the-box thinking, Isuggest that organizations expand and build abigger box one that gives people room to safelyplay with innovative ideas and a place to grow,while still having familiar and secure boundaries.This is what combining the best of culture withpositive enhancements to organizational climateprovides a bigger-box environment whereadaptability and change is accepted as a naturalpart of growth and evolution.1James E. Grunig, Ph.D. is co-author of Managing PublicRelations and Public Relations Techniques and Managers Guideto Excellence in PR and Communication Management.17Measuring culture and climateOne way to measure corporate culture andclimate and assess the overall corporateenvironment is to use the OrganizationalEnvironment Index that I developed a number ofyears ago (see Figure One, left). The index uses asimple 1-5 scale to measure 10 factors commonlyassociated with organizational culture and 10factors commonly associated with organizationalclimate. Besides being linked to culture andclimate, the factors are also related to whatcreates trust within organizations.Experience with the index shows that if theculture factors score low then theres a very goodchance youll find a low score associated with theclimate factors. The reason for this is thatorganizational culture shapes climate. Forexample, if personal rights and values are notwell respected and there are low trust levels(culture factors) then theres a strong likelihoodthat employees wont be in a position to actindependently and important information wontbe openly shared (climate factors).The index can also reveal where corporateculture is strongest and therefore contributes to asense of trust and security. In such cases theresalso a likelihood that many climate factors willalso score higher on the index. Healthy corporateenvironments generally score high on both theculture and climate factors, while unhealthyorganizations score low on both.Using an environment index at the RCMPMy experience with the index is that it can proveto be a useful guide in managing a changeprocess. For example, in a department of theRoyal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) PacificRegion, we first surveyed employees to get theirrating of culture and climate and then focusedheavily on where quick wins could be achieved ina number of climate factors. Many of these weredirectly linked to effective communication suchas important information is openly shared andthe organization values individual feedback. Recommendations were made that involvedenhanced teamwork between different workunits, greater communication from supervisors toemployees, plus a system of recognition forexemplary work. These and otherrecommendations to climate factors were easy toimplement and were likely to produce early,positive results. But as well as addressing someclimate changes, the process also made a priorityof recognizing the organizational culture.There was strong acknowledgement in thechange process of what RCMP employees saw asOctober/November 2006Volume 10, Issue 6scmThe impact of culture and climate on change programsCONTACTEli Sopow, P.h.DRoyal Canadian Mounted Police eli.sopow@rcmp-grc.gc.ca e-mail:scm