How can you improve the workplace climate?

In everyday use, the term describes how people experience the way they treat one another and work together in an organisation. This can include reliability, fairness, support and the ability to raise problems. It is a shared working reality that individuals may perceive differently.

A friendly atmosphere does not rule out obstructive processes. Conversely, factual, direct communication does not necessarily mean the climate is poor. What matters is whether people can do their work under understandable conditions and raise difficulties without having to fear inappropriate reactions.

The DGUV culture dialogues provide materials that organisations can use to examine their own situations and develop improvements. They cover leadership, participation, communication and the approach to mistakes, among other topics. To get started, the connection to your own everyday work is crucial.

Look for recurring changes and describe them specifically. Are follow-up questions seen as attacks? Do responsibilities between teams regularly remain unclear? Is agreement signalled in meetings while the arrangements are not implemented later? These observations are starting points for clarification, not a complete diagnosis.

Note counterexamples too. In which situations does collaboration still work well? If you only look for confirmation that ‘The mood here is poor’, you may overlook conditions in which the team remains able to act. Helpful differences can become visible through this.

Do not automatically confuse reserve with rejection. A quiet person may be concentrating, uncertain, tired or unfamiliar with the task being discussed. A group survey can provide additional perspectives, but it also does not allow reliable interpretations of individuals.

Ask about a specific recurring situation: What should happen, what actually happens and what are the consequences? A sentence such as ‘Sales shows no consideration’ already contains a judgement. A description such as ‘Work is promised before available capacity has been clarified’ makes a process visible that you can address.

In a fictional service business, two teams see each other as unreliable. On closer examination, handovers have no fixed time and no consistent minimum information. There may also be a personal dispute. Even so, it would make sense to clarify the handover process first rather than relying only on greater mutual understanding.

Sometimes the issue really is a specific conflict or inappropriate behaviour. That needs a responsible person and a suitable process for addressing it. A general mood question must not hide such incidents or shift responsibility back onto the group.

First explain the purpose: you want to understand and improve particular work situations. Be transparent about who can see responses, how you use results and what can still be inferred. Open comments in written feedback require particular care.

Use questions about conditions, such as ‘I receive the information I need for my tasks’. Avoid asking people to name difficult colleagues. A collection like that can reinforce labels and does not automatically help resolve matters responsibly.

Offer a separate confidential channel for personal concerns. Not everything can be raised safely in a team discussion. The guidance on confidentiality and involvement before you start helps clarify the framework. Anyone personally involved in an escalated conflict should also consider whether another person needs to facilitate.

Match the starting point as precisely as possible. The following table provides original practical examples; it does not replace an investigation of your situation.

An experiment should be feasible in everyday work. If the solution needs more time than is available for it, the next problem begins as soon as it is introduced. Make the change specific enough that you can later tell whether it was implemented at all.

In its suggestions for a better workplace climate, AOK discusses trust and the ability to handle conflict, among other things. For your implementation, what matters is how terms like these can be translated into observable agreements.

Take the feedback seriously without accepting the attribution uncritically. Ask about specific situations and address them through a suitable process. A public vote on who is worsening the mood would not be a sensible next step.

There may be actual problematic behaviour. But a person may also have to communicate unpopular decisions or point out an unresolved process flaw. Review behaviour, conditions and responsibilities separately. Protect those involved from unnecessary sharing of confidential information within the team.

Allegations of bullying, discrimination or threats require appropriate internal or specialist handling. Do not wait for the next mood check-in. General feedback on the climate replaces neither the investigation of an incident nor necessary protective measures.

Before making a change, agree on what you want to look for. With a new handover process, the team could repeatedly assess whether the information they need is available in time. Also check whether handovers actually take place as agreed and which follow-up questions remain unresolved.

Consider several signals together. A quieter week may show relief, but may also mean that people are raising fewer issues. Feedback may initially become more critical when problems are named more openly. Without context, neither a higher nor a lower score explains itself.

Ask about side effects too. Did the new coordination help but create too many additional meetings? Does a rule ease the burden on one department while making another's work harder? A review is useful when it is allowed to lead to adjustments. The guide Analysing an employee survey shows how to turn findings into decisions.

Decide who will look after the agreement and when you will review it again. An issue quickly loses its binding nature if it has no clear place after a workshop. A brief recurring review can help, as long as it enables a real decision.

Explain to the team what has changed and what remains unresolved. If you end an action, explain that too. This makes it clear that the review is not a ritual in which only positive results are welcome. The article Improving employee satisfaction also helps with the broader framework.

EngageBeat makes changes in people's experience of collaboration and relevant topic feedback visible. This can help with choosing and reviewing actions; resolving conflicts and implementing changes remain your responsibility. See how it works or try it for 28 days. Your chosen paid subscription begins unless you cancel before the trial ends.