Many leaders do not make a distinction between organizational climate and organizational culture. Most organizational behavior scholars do. I see climate and culture related but with important differences. As a consultant and as a manager, I have found climate much easier to change. Culture is deeply embedded and very difficult to change.
 
Schneider, Ehrhart, and Macey wrote an excellent review of organizational climate and culture for the 2013 Annual Review of Psychology. The difference in their words:

• Organizational climate - concerned with  “the meaning employees attach to the policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behaviors they observe being rewarded, supported,  and expected” (p. 381) 
• Organizational culture – concerned with “implicit values, beliefs, and assumptions that employees infer guide behavior, and they base these inferences on the stories, myths, and socialization experiences they have and the behaviors they observe (especially on the part of leaders) that prove to be useful and promote success” (p. 381).

They noted that executives commonly use the term culture for both and “have little concern for the distinctions” (p. 378).  What is important to executives:

• Knowing the culture: if you know your culture, you can compare it with the culture of other organizations, such as those in the same industry, and benchmark.
• Changing the culture: “Somewhat limited direct influence on effecting change” but can initiate interventions “to reduce gap between existing and desired cultures” (p. 379).
• Leveraging culture for competitive advantage: Make culture an asset through “unique mission statement enacted by support for the unique processes necessary to embed the mission’s values . . .” (p. 380).

 
My take-aways:
 
1. Leaders may find it useful to see climate and culture differently. Leaders at every level affect climate profoundly:

• the degree to which employees participate in decision-making
• the level of employee engagement,
• aspects of job satisfaction
• factors affecting workplace stress

Studies show that replacing a manager perceived negatively by employees with a manager perceived positively can change the climate. Climate can be changed. Culture – very difficult.
 
2.  Organizational feedback surveys are a good way to assess aspects of climate. I used these for many years as a consultant. Gather the information, summarize, and then cascade back through the organization. Where issues are identified, form action teams to work the issues. Do these annually and demonstrate that they have a positive impact and each year the quality of the feedback will improve.
 
3. In The Optimistic Workplace Shawn Murphy noted that “people in positive work environments outperform those who work in negative work climates by 10 to 30 percent” (p. 9). Most importantly Murphy lays out a roadmap for leaders, even those not in leadership positions, to effect positive workplace climate change through workplace attitudes and behaviors. If you want to change the climate of your workplace, this is a good place to start.
 
4. In Decoding the Workplace I discuss the impact of culture and how difficult it is to change: “It is the bedrock of the organization and it could take an earthquake to shift the landscape” (p. 93). Culture is pervasive. We are like fish in water unaware of the water. “Culture gives members of an organization a common lens to look through to make sense of events around them” (p. 97). We can often see the surface aspects of culture if we are attentive but the underlying assumptions may be hard to see. 
 
5. For leaders looking for a competitive advantage through culture, I suggest taking a good look at how employees are treated. Do you see employees as costs or as assets? The organization’s underlying assumption about its people is telling. As Wayne Cascio (University of Colorado – Denver) has demonstrated, treating employees as costs can result in layoffs often with “disastrous” consequences, especially in knowledge-based organizations. I highly recommend his book, Responsible Restructuring.
 
Ballard, J. A. (2015). Decoding the workplace: 50 keys to understanding people in organizations. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
 
Cascio, W. F. (2002). Responsible restructuring: Creative and profitable alternatives to layoffs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
 
Murphy, S. (2015). The optimistic workplace: Creating an environment that energizes everyone. New York: AMACON.
 
Scheider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture.  Annual review of psychology, 64 (361-388).
 
Image “Office Work” by Veronica Therese. Used with permission, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
 _________________________
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
 
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review
 
Available at leading online bookstores such as Amazon.com
________________________
Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/johnballardphd
On Twitter: @johnballardphd
​

Our world is perceptual. You may be the best performer who has ever been in your position, but your boss may perceive your work very differently. Sometimes employees receive feedback that is surprising, feedback totally inconsistent with their self-perceptions. As I wrote in Decoding the Workplace, “how others view you in the world will determine much of your success at work and in life. Perceptions affect job opportunities, relationships, performance, promotions, physical health, mental health, and more” (p. 23).
 
Some perceptions seem to be innate. We tend to perceive taller people and more attractive people as more competent, and thus they tend to be more successful in obtaining promotions and opportunities. Some of these perceptions are based on sex-related real differences. One sex-related difference we usually do not consider is the pitch of our voice. Pitch is the rate at which our vocal cords vibrant. Men have thicker, longer vocal cords and lower pitch. On average women’s vocal cords vibrant twice as fast as men and hence the higher pitch. Pitch is one of the largest sex-related differences between men and women.
 
David Puts (Penn State) talked about pitch and sex differences at a symposium in 2015 at the International Convention of Psychological Science meeting in Amsterdam. Puts described the physiology of pitch, its probable evolutionary role in human mate selection, and implications for the workplace.

• We tend to lower the pitch of our voice when we command others to do something; we raise the pitch when asking questions.
• We tend to perceive people with lower pitch as leaders; we treat with more respect. 
• A 1 Hertz decrease in pitch may increase annual salary by $8500.
• Pitch may play a role in the socio-economic prospects for women since most have higher pitch.

Puts’ work and that of others suggest leaders should be aware of a possible, unintentional bias based on the sound of a voice.
 
My take-aways:
 
1. There is a growing body of research that supports the role of voice pitch in workplace success. Duke University business professors found CEOs with deeper voices ran larger companies and earned larger salaries.
 
2. My own experience has been that people with voices with lower pitch tend to be perceived as more confident, both men and women. Research has shown confidence consistently as a leadership trait.
 
3. If you have a voice with a higher pitch, you may be able to lower the pitch with practice. When you talk, notice where the air vibrates in your mouth. The farther back in your mouth and throat the vibration, the deeper the voice sounds. 
 
4. I think the larger issue here is the unintentional bias that may exist in the workplace that limits opportunities for women and some men, not based on ability but the sound of their voices. As leaders this should enter into our judgments and decisions. We should not unintentionally deny opportunities to those who might be very successful given the opportunity.

Puts, D. (March, 2015). Human sexual selection: What our voices tell us. Paper presented at the International Convention of Psychological Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 

© John Ballard, PhD,  2016. All rights reserved.
__________________________
Author of Decoding the Workplace, BEST CAREER BOOK Next Generation Indie Book Awards.
 
"Decoding the Workplace: 50 Keys to Understanding People in Organizations is as informed and informative a read as it is thoughtful and thought-provoking. . . Decoding the Workplace should be considered critically important reading for anyone working in a corporate environment." —Midwest Book Review
 
Available at leading online bookstores such as Amazon.com
________________________
Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/johnballardphd
On Twitter: @johnballardphd