Much has been written about both culture and climate. Features, tips, structure have been written, and you can even find various definitions of these concepts. Beyond knowing the difference between the two and the importance of a healthy and productive organization, it is also important to understand the difference between building both climate and culture and integrating it into organizational objectives.
It is a reality that both culture and organizational climate is advisable to build a design previously thought, analyzed, and defined that framed the strategy organizational style and talent you want to get to that strategy. This is important because it avoids mistakes and losses of both time and money by underestimating the power of the organizational climate and culture if it is allowed to be formed independently and intrinsically.
It is possible to avoid human training talent in a way that is not aimed at achieving organizational achievements, reducing turnover by generating greater identity in collaborators, losing money on soft-skills training that is not what collaborators necessarily need, among other common mistakes in properly designing both the organizational climate and culture.
One of the similarities in the final objective; both must be structured to focus the worker in such a way that he is more productive, connected, and directed towards the organizational objectives.
The second resemblance that is recognized is the extent of the impact, both positive and negative, of the construction of the same against the worker’s productivity, from their perception of the company.
The third most obvious similarity is the importance that detail orientation plays for effective climate and culture design and construction. The detail is where employees can perceive the dedication and importance of the variety of activities and commitments involved in building a good culture.
Now, what are the differences when building an organizational climate and culture?
The first one is the focus. Focus refers to the direction in which action plans are expected to go. In the case of organizational climate, the action plans are guided to allude to emotion, which maintains the motivation of the collaborators. That is why it is important to focus on detail in the face of recreation activities, recognitions, birthday decorations, etc.
Meanwhile, the organizational culture’s design is focused on changes and development of necessary specific behaviors and forms of the logic of concrete thoughts that constantly direct the worker to achieve objectives. That is why culture tends to focus on actions that last over time that form tradition, symbols, and defined and previously planned customs.
In the case of climate, action plans can be designed to generate immediate perception and, at the same time, make it more visible and tangible for employees. For their part, organizational culture processes are designed to generate profound changes that are not necessarily immediately perceived by employees but are tangibly reflected over a longer period and monitoring.
Finally, we found a difference compared to the time in which it is expected to generate an impact on the action plan. In the design of actions to build climate, they are designed to have a short-term impact; they are reactive plans and visible to employees. In terms of organizational culture design, given the depth of the action plans, it is expected to generate long-term impact by generating plans to anticipate unwanted behaviors.
The advantage of managing these specific differences when designing how you want to create an organizational culture and work environment is that you avoid a wrong training of talent, allowing a more organized and expected management of employees, to develop their strengths aimed at connecting them and achieving organizational objectives.