Open almost any collection of methods for assessing psychological climate and you'll find Fred Fiedler's scale and Anatoly Lutoshkin's climate map in it. Neither came into Russian-language practice from an office: Fiedler's scale was translated and adapted by Yuri Hanin, who worked with sports teams, and Lutoshkin wrote his map for a school class rated by its teacher.[3][4][5] There's nothing wrong with that, but comparing a sales team or a warehouse with their norms calls for caution.
I'll start with the hypothetical case the whole article rests on: Kevin runs a logistics department where eleven people have worked together since two warehouses were merged, and he thinks the climate is fine because there are no conflicts and shipments go out on time. Irene, the HR business partner, sees a different picture: at planning meetings the six people from the former first warehouse do the talking, the five from the second stay quiet, and decisions get discussed afterward over coffee. Irene needs to find out which of them is right without souring relations with the team in the process.
What psychological climate is
Psychological climate usually means how employees perceive their work environment: whether they can count on help from colleagues and their manager, whether it's safe to admit a mistake, and whether people argue openly. Christopher Parker and his co-authors combined 121 independent samples in a meta-analysis and showed that these perceptions are significantly related to how people feel about their work, how motivated they are and how well they perform.[1] Individual perceptions become a team's climate only when they converge, and if six people in Kevin's department describe the atmosphere as friendly while five describe it as tense, the average tells the truth about neither group.
Climate is often confused with psychological safety, although safety is the narrower idea. Amy Edmondson defines it as a team's shared belief that people can ask an awkward question or admit a slip without putting relationships at risk, and in her study of 51 work teams in a manufacturing company that belief was associated with how readily teams learned from their mistakes.[2] Besides safety, climate covers the emotional tone, cohesion and relationships with the manager. A person's attitude toward the job and the company as a whole is better measured separately, through an engagement survey or a satisfaction survey.
Signs of a healthy and an unhealthy climate
Long before any questionnaire, climate shows in small things, and it helps Irene to check her observations against the typical signs first.
| Situation | Healthy climate | Unhealthy climate |
|---|---|---|
| A colleague's mistake | Discussed openly and fixed together | Someone gets blamed, or nobody speaks |
| Disagreement | Raised in the meeting | Discussed afterward in small circles |
| A request for help | Help comes unprompted | Help comes only when assigned |
| A new hire | Settles in quickly | Stays an outsider for months |
| The manager's decisions | People ask questions and push back | People agree aloud and criticize later |
Two signs from the right-hand column are visible in the logistics department straight away: disagreements move from the meeting to the coffee machine, and only half the department gets to speak at meetings. That doesn't prove the climate is poor, but it does tell Irene what question the survey should answer: do people from the two former warehouses perceive support and the freedom to disagree in the same way?
Climate assessment methods: what each one measures
The three methods that appear in collections more often than others answer different questions and grew out of work with different groups.
| Method | What it measures | Format | Original group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fiedler's scale (Hanin's adaptation) | Overall group atmosphere | 10 pairs of opposite characteristics | Sports teams (adaptation) |
| Lutoshkin's climate map | Signs of climate in a group | Pairs of opposite statements, +3 to −3 | School class, rated by a teacher |
| Seashore's cohesion index | How attractive the group is to a member | 5 multiple-choice questions | Industrial work groups |
The Fiedler method: overall group atmosphere
Fiedler's scale asks people to rate the atmosphere on ten pairs such as "friendliness versus hostility" and "agreement versus disagreement." In Hanin's adaptation the total falls between 10 and 80, a lower score means a more favorable atmosphere, and only the group's average profile is meaningful, since one person's answers say little on their own.[3][4] For Kevin's department the method would give an overall picture, but Irene would have to dig the split between the warehouses out of it by hand.
Lutoshkin's climate map: climate through an observer's eyes
Lutoshkin described his climate map in 1978 in a book on the emotional life of children's groups, and there it's filled in by a teacher rating the class on pairs of opposite statements from +3 to −3.[5] A version for adult teams was proposed in 2009 by Leonid Pergamenshchik and Nikolai Lepeshinsky, so whenever "the Lutoshkin method" turns up in a corporate questionnaire, it's worth finding out which version you're looking at.[6]
Seashore's cohesion index: how attractive the group is
The group cohesion index traces back to Stanley Seashore's 1954 study of industrial work groups.[7] For the widely used five-question Russian versions the source of the translation hasn't been established, so they're better used to compare a team with itself six months later than with any norms.
We don't publish the forms of these methods, because their wording changes from one edition to the next. For an internal assessment it's more reliable to put together a short questionnaire in your own words, and the section below shows how.
Cohesion: two different indexes with the same name
Reports use the word "cohesion" for two different measures, and confusion is almost inevitable. Seashore's questionnaire asks each person how much it matters to them to stay in the group. A sociometric index is calculated from mutual choices: people name colleagues they'd like to work with, and the index reflects the share of choices that are returned. Even that isn't unambiguous, since different formulas applied to the same data produce values that differ by a factor of two, as the sociomatrix article explains in detail.
For Irene, sociometry is useful because it shows a split where a survey shows only an average. In formeasure the sociogram is built automatically, together with a cohesion index based on mutual choices and the breakdown of employees into status groups, and if the two warehouses never grew into one department, the diagram will show two dense clusters with a couple of threads between them. The formeasure sociometry page describes how such an assessment works, and the logic of the method is covered in the article on sociometry in the workplace.
High cohesion doesn't guarantee results on its own, and the meta-analyses show why. Brian Mullen and Carolyn Copper found a significant but small link that rested mainly on commitment to the shared task, and data collected at different points in time suggested that success brings a group together more than cohesion brings success.[8] Daniel Beal and his colleagues added that the link is stronger where performance is measured as behavior and efficiency and the work demands constant interaction.[9] Kevin can take two things from this: a close-knit department can still be a weak one, and a run of missed shipments can damage the climate faster than any conflict.
How to run a climate assessment in a team
The questionnaire for the logistics department is built around Irene's question, so it carries nothing extra: eight statements on a 1-to-5 agreement scale and one open question about what gets in the way of working together. Each statement describes behavior the person has seen for themselves, and you can adapt the wording for your own team.
Answers run from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"), and they're best read statement by statement, without an overall index. A gap of about one point or more between subgroups is a reason for a conversation; that's a working rule for small teams, and research sets no particular threshold.
Anonymity matters more here than in almost any other survey, since people are rating colleagues and a manager they'll work with tomorrow. Splitting the answers into two groups of five or six is possible, but it's the lower limit, and the details of such splits are covered in the piece on the anonymous employee survey. Before launch Irene tells the department why the survey is being run, who will see the answers and on what day the team will discuss them.
How to read the results
Suppose the statement "decisions are discussed with me in advance" averaged 3.8, which looks perfectly respectable to a manager. Breaking it down by warehouse changes the picture: the six people from the first warehouse gave it 4.8 on average, the five from the second 2.6. Behind the average here are two groups with opposite experiences, and a decision based on the average alone wouldn't suit either of them.
Open-ended answers help explain what's behind the numbers, so you look for recurring themes in them and don't try to guess who wrote what. Two or three months after the department agrees on changes, a short repeat survey with three to five of the same statements is enough to check whether the gap between the warehouses has narrowed.
How to improve the psychological climate in a team
Improving the climate starts with taking the assessment results back to the people who answered. Research offers no universal recipe, so what follows is a working sequence of four steps, using Kevin's department as the example.
Share the results and name the problem out loud
- What to do
- Discuss the findings first with the manager and then with the team: the overall picture, the spread and one or two themes, without comparisons that could identify people
- In the logistics department
- Irene opens her conversation with Kevin with the spread, and at the department meeting the theme "decisions aren't discussed with everyone" is said aloud
Agree on one or two changes to how work is done
- What to do
- The team itself chooses what changes and words it as a rule that shows in everyday work
- In the logistics department
- A planning meeting where everyone speaks about their own area, plus a rule that decisions affecting the warehouse are discussed before they're approved
Give people a shared task
- What to do
- Assign a task that one subgroup can't complete alone, since the meta-analysis ties cohesion mainly to commitment to the shared task
- In the logistics department
- Mixed pairs from the two warehouses for stocktaking and handling returns
Check again in two or three months
- What to do
- Repeat three to five of the same statements in a short survey and compare the spread along with the average
- In the logistics department
- A pulse survey in February: has the gap between 4.8 and 2.6 narrowed?
The third step draws on Mullen and Copper's finding about commitment to the shared task, and short pulse surveys suit the fourth.[8] If the open answers mention overload, the climate can sag as a result, so it then makes sense to look at workload separately, along the lines of the article on employee burnout.
Common mistakes in assessing climate
The most common mistake is taking a method from a collection as it is, without checking which group it was built for, and then comparing an office team with norms meant for athletes or schoolchildren. A broken promise of anonymity does just as much harm: results are shown for a group of three, and next time there won't be any honest answers.
A survey after which nothing changes also works against HR, because the next one will measure people's attitude toward surveys more than the climate. And finally, a single average makes it easy to miss exactly what the assessment was meant to find, as nearly happened in Kevin's department.
Limitations of this approach
The meta-analysis by Parker and his co-authors shows that climate perceptions are linked to work attitudes and performance, but it doesn't prove that a company that improves its climate will automatically improve its results, since much of the research relies on one-off surveys.[1] The classic Russian-language methods were built for sports teams and school classes, for some versions the source of the translation hasn't been established, and their norms shouldn't be carried over to work teams. The logistics department, Kevin and Irene are hypothetical, and the numbers were chosen to show how an average hides a split.
Climate and sociometry in formeasure
In formeasure it's convenient to look at climate from two sides: a survey in the survey builder collects climate statements anonymously and shows results by department, merging groups that fall below the minimum number of responses. Sociometry shows how connections in the team are structured, calculates a cohesion index from mutual choices and sorts employees into status groups. The first answers how people experience the atmosphere, the second who they actually work with.
You can put a climate questionnaire together in the survey builder on the formeasure surveys page and try the service in a demo workspace there.
If you've already assessed climate after merging teams or a change of manager, tell us on the formeasure LinkedIn page which questions worked for you. With the authors' consent, we'll add the best wording to this article and credit them by name.
Frequently asked questions about psychological climate
What is psychological climate in a team?
It's how employees perceive relationships, support and atmosphere in their team: how friendly colleagues are, whether mistakes and disagreements can be discussed openly, and whether the manager offers help. These perceptions become a team's climate when most members describe the atmosphere in a similar way.
What is socio-psychological climate?
It's the name Russian-language social psychology uses for the same psychological climate, stressing that it arises from relationships between people in a group. In HR practice the two terms are used as synonyms.
How do you assess psychological climate at work?
Define the question the assessment should answer, run an anonymous survey of eight to ten statements about behavior in the team plus one or two open questions, and then read the results together with their spread and the differences between subgroups. To see the structure of relationships as well, the survey can be combined with sociometry based on mutual choices.
Which methods are used to diagnose team climate?
The most common are Fiedler's group atmosphere scale in Hanin's adaptation, Lutoshkin's climate map and Seashore's group cohesion index. They were built for sports teams, school classes and industrial work groups, so it's worth checking the version before use and not carrying their norms over to office teams.
What does the Fiedler method show?
It produces an average profile of the group atmosphere across ten pairs of opposite characteristics such as "friendliness versus hostility." The total ranges from 10 to 80, a lower value means a more favorable rating, and one person's result isn't interpreted on its own.
What was the Lutoshkin method designed for?
Lutoshkin's climate map was described in 1978 for assessing the psychological climate of children's groups, with the rating given by a teacher. A version for adult teams was proposed by Pergamenshchik and Lepeshinsky in 2009.
How does Seashore's index differ from a sociometric cohesion index?
Seashore's index is calculated from answers to five questions about how much it matters to a member to stay in the group. A sociometric index is calculated from colleagues' mutual choices and reflects the structure of connections in the team, and with different formulas its values on the same data can differ by a factor of two.
Does cohesion affect team performance?
Meta-analyses show a significant but small link, which is stronger where the work requires close interaction and performance is measured as behavior and efficiency. There's evidence that success brings a group together more than cohesion improves results.
How can you improve the psychological climate in a team?
Discuss the assessment results with the team, pick one or two problems and agree on concrete changes to how work is done, such as how meetings run and how decisions are made. After two or three months, run a short repeat survey with the same statements.
How often should climate be assessed?
A full assessment is usually run once a year or after major changes, such as merging teams or a change of manager. In between, short pulse surveys on a few statements tied to the agreed changes are enough.
Sources
- Parker C. P., Baltes B. B., Young S. A., Huff J. W., Altmann R. A., LaCost H. A., Roberts J. E. — Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review // Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2003. Vol. 24, No. 4. P. 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.198
- Edmondson A. — Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams // Administrative Science Quarterly. 1999. Vol. 44, No. 2. P. 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
- Fiedler F. E. — A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
- Hanin Yu. L. — Psikhologiya obshcheniya v sporte [The psychology of communication in sport]. Moscow: Fizkultura i sport, 1980.
- Lutoshkin A. N. — Emotsionalnaya zhizn detskogo kollektiva [The emotional life of children's groups]. Moscow: Znanie, 1978.
- Pergamenshchik L. A., Lepeshinsky N. N. — Sotsialnaya podderzhka i ee izmerenie [Social support and its measurement] // Psikhologicheskaya diagnostika. 2009. No. 1.
- Seashore S. E. — Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, 1954.
- Mullen B., Copper C. — The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration // Psychological Bulletin. 1994. Vol. 115, No. 2. P. 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210
- Beal D. J., Cohen R. R., Burke M. J., McLendon C. L. — Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003. Vol. 88, No. 6. P. 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989