Effect of institutional organizational climate on job performance: A review.

Abstract

Objectives: The study of organizational climate has gained renewed academic importance over the past decade, particularly within the context of accelerated transformations in workplace dynamics, digitalization, and increasing cross-regional diversity in organizational management (Amalou, 2024). Defined as employees’ shared perception of workplace conditions that influence interactions, decision-making, and job performance, organizational climate has been empirically linked to outcomes such as commitment, satisfaction, and productivity (Amiri et al., 2023; Pinedo Dávila & Delgado Bardales, 2020). Existing research consistently supports the notion that a positive organizational climate enhances professional well-being and motivation (Almeida et al., 2022; Eneh, 2024; Lara Ríos, 2021). However, the strength and consistency of this relationship depend on multiple factors including leadership style, organizational structure, and cultural context (Al’Ararah et al., 2024; Hernández Gracia et al., 2021). Consequently, these variations highlight the multifactorial nature of organizational climate, often encompassing dimensions such as communication, innovation, leadership, satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Antequera Amaris et al., 2021; Hussainy, 2022). Concurrently, job performance has been conceptualized not only in terms of task completion but also through intangible outcomes like creativity, collaborative orientation, and organizational learning (Rendon-Guerra et al., 2025; Saidin et al., 2024). Its relationship with climate varies across sectors (education, technology, finance, public administration) and depends heavily on labor dynamics (Gonzáles Vásquez et al., 2021; Sumba-Bustamante et al., 2022). Despite increasing scholarly attention, there remains a lack of interregional analysis of how organizational climate functions in different socio-cultural environments. While Latin America and Asia share pressures such as performance demands and innovation imperatives, their institutional structures and management cultures differ. Therefore, this study aims to describe and compare how the relationship between organizational climate and job performance is conceptualized and measured in studies conducted in Latin America and Asia, identifying critical patterns and conceptual gaps.

Materials and methods: This study followed a systematic literature review design based on PRISMA guidelines, with the aim of  identifying and analyzing the relationship between organizational climate and job performance in Latin America and Asia. The review emphasized comparative interregional synthesis through rigorous selection and analysis criteria. The inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed publications from 2018 to 2021 that explicitly addressed organizational climate or related factors in relation to job performance. Studies had to be conducted within Latin America or Asia and published in English or Spanish. Preference was given to open-access articles from indexed journals that allowed for empirical and methodologically sound comparisons. This time frame allowed the inclusion of studies conducted before and after the COVID-19 pandemic while excluding the pandemic itself as a central analytic axis. Exclusion criteria filtered out studies unrelated to the organizational climate–performance link, those based on samples too narrow for generalizable insights, and purely narrative or qualitative studies lacking comparative or analytical rigor. Theses, technical reports, and gray literature were also excluded. The search strategy utilized databases such as Scopus, SciELO, Redalyc, and Google Scholar, using the terms “organizational climate” AND “job performance” in both English and Spanish. Study selection was carried out in two phases: (1) title and abstract screening to eliminate irrelevant studies, followed by (2) a full-text review for methodological robustness and relevance to the comparative framework. Each study was codified using a standardized extraction sheet detailing author, year, country, objectives, methodology, sample, analyzed variables, journal, indexing status, sector, and main findings. The analysis was twofold: firstly, thematic systematization of recurring variables (climate, performance, leadership, commitment, satisfaction), and secondly, a descriptive interregional comparison. This included the frequency of thematic dimensions by region, sectoral distribution, methodological approaches, and statistical techniques. The procedure enabled a structured lens to explore contextual divergences and regional consistencies regarding the climate–performance nexus.

Results: Upon applying the established inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 18 studies were selected: 10 from Latin America and 8 from Asia. Regarding the temporal distribution, results varied by region: Latin American studies were concentrated in 2018 (40%), while Asian studies peaked in 2020 (50%). In sectoral terms, Latin American research focused primarily on private enterprises (40%), whereas Asian studies emphasized technology and telecommunications (37.5%), followed by financial and public institutions (25% each). Peru led the Latin American contributions (50%), whereas Asian studies were more evenly distributed across Jordan, Pakistan, and Indonesia. The relationship between organizational climate and job performance showed variability in strength and interpretation. For instance, Latin American studies reported correlations ranging from moderate (r = 0.511) to strong (r = 0.95), while others used descriptive approaches without specifying coefficients. Asian studies similarly found moderate relationships (e.g., R² = .429, β = 0.490), but emphasized specific dimensions of climate rather than holistic assessments. Leadership emerged as a pivotal, but differentially treated factor. In Latin America, it was acknowledged as part of climate perception but rarely analyzed independently. In contrast, Asian studies examined leadership styles directly—transformational leadership improved financial and operational performance (Son et al., 2020), while laissez-faire leadership demonstrated a negative effect (Gemeda & Lee, 2020). Authentic and interpersonal leadership showed stronger impacts in public institutions. Job satisfaction was consistently associated with performance in both regions. Models from Peru and Indonesia explained up to 86.6% and 78.9% of variance, respectively. Satisfaction dimensions like recognition and achievement emerged as key predictors. Although organizational commitment received little attention in Latin America, it was more commonly analyzed in Asia, with studies indicating moderate to strong associations depending on the sector and commitment dimensions.

Conclusions: The findings of this study confirms that organizational climate positively influences job performance in both Latin America and Asia, though with regional differences in emphasis and intensity. Latin American studies tend to adopt a holistic view of climate, whereas Asian research focuses on specific dimensions as independent or mediating variables. Admittedly, Methodological diversity limited cross-study comparability, yet revealed valuable regional patterns. Leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment emerged as key drivers, though their impact varied. The findings underscore the importance of adapting interventions to cultural and institutional contexts and call for more standardized comparative approaches to enhance external validity in future research.