Relationship between work cultures and work climate
The question now is whether there is a correlation between the work cultures, or the type of collaboration, and the work climate, i.e. the perceived productivity, inspiration and excessive demands. To answer this, we will refer back to the four types of work cultures explored, which represent the latent dimensions of cooperation and competition (see Figure 31).
Figure 31 shows that the two work cultures with a high level of cooperation exhibit very similar patterns in terms of work climate. In the culture of “high cooperation and weak competition,” which represents 50% of all respondents, there are very high values for perceived productivity and inspiration, with low values for perceived overload at the same time. The work culture of “high cooperation and strong competition,” in which 22% of respondents find themselves, exhibits the same pattern.
In strong contrast to this are the two other work cultures with low cooperation, which together represent 28% of the respondents. In both groups, the work climate is perceived as significantly less productive and inspiring, with a simultaneously stronger sense of being overstrained (see Figure 31).
The results show that the characteristics of the working climate examined depend to a large extent on the level of cooperation. However, the element of competition also has an effect, albeit to a significantly lesser extent: performance-related competition can slightly increase perceived productivity, but at the same time increases the levels of being overwhelmed. This applies both to the comparison of work cultures with a high level of cooperation and to work cultures with a low level of cooperation (see Figure 31). There is therefore an independent effect of competitive elements in the work cultures, even if this is relatively small compared to the outstanding main effect of “cooperation”.
Ideally, research cultures and work cultures are designed to promote positive outcomes, such as research quality and innovativeness, and to minimise the probability of negative outcomes. Incidents of discrimination and abuse of power are to be understood as a very extreme negative effect of poor work culture. The Berlin Science Survey therefore also asked about experiences with discrimination and abuse of power. The questionnaire defined abuse of power as follows: “By using their position of power, a person harms others and takes advantage for themselves or their favourites.” Discrimination was defined as follows in the questionnaire: “Discrimination means that a person or group is devalued or disadvantaged compared to others on the basis of one or more characteristics.” The numbers for the two topics are very close, which suggests that the conceptual differences between the two concepts were not clearly perceived by the respondents. On the other hand, however, it may also be an indication that both concepts are empirically closely linked. It seems plausible that discrimination occurs more frequently where individuals abuse their power and elevate themselves above others.
The results of the BSS show that discrimination is a widespread phenomenon and not limited to isolated cases (see Figure 32). Discrimination is obviously not a negligible phenomenon. Almost one in four scientists has experienced discrimination themselves. Thus, 23% of scientists state that they have experienced discrimination themselves at least once in their current work environment within the last 24 months. Among them, 9.3% have experienced it several times and 3.2% even regularly. Significantly more (almost 40%) state that they have observed discrimination at least once – including 18.6% several times and 5% regularly (see Figure 32).
4% have regularly experienced abuse of power themselves, and almost 7% have regularly observed it (see Figure 33). 18% have observed abuse of power several times and 9.6% have experienced it several times. 10% have experienced it once and 14% have observed it once (see Figure 33).
This shows that, while the majority of scientists experience discrimination and abuse of power in the workplace, there is also a scalable number of such incidents that point to structural problems in some work environments.
Figures 34 and 35 show which groups are particularly affected by experiences of discrimination and abuse of power. For this, we refer to a battery of diversity characteristics surveyed in the Berlin Science Survey, which makes various subgroups identifiable. The characteristics surveyed are based on the Minimal Diversity Item Set (Stadler et al. 2023) and were modified for the Berlin Science Survey (Ambrasat et al. 2024).
Not surprisingly, but here for the first time provable by numbers, gender diverse scientists (41.5%), as well as those belonging to ethnic or religious minorities, experience discrimination more often (each at around 38%) than the average (see Figure 34). Women (33.5%), people with long-term mental or physical illnesses (37% and 33% respectively) and those who identify as LGBTIQ+ (34%) also report discrimination more often than the overall average (see Figure 34).
The risk of experiencing abuse of power is also higher for certain groups of people (see Figure 35). For example, it is particularly high for gender diverse people (48%), as well as for people with long-term physical (35%) or mental (40%) illnesses (see Figure 35). Women (29%), people who belong to ethnic (29%) or religious minorities (32%), as well as those who identify as LGBTIQ+ (30%), also report abuse of power more often than the overall average (see Figure 35).
The BSS data are the first cross-sectional data for the Berlin research area to show that discrimination and abuse of power in science are not limited to isolated cases. Collecting and providing such cross-sectional numbers can itself be an important step in raising awareness of the issue and in attracting greater attention to discrimination and abuse of power in everyday life among all parties involved.
Figure 36 shows very clearly that research cultures and work cultures are also closely related to the occurrence of discrimination and abuse of power. Toxic behaviours are significantly more prevalent in research cultures where cooperation is very low and competition is very strong. In these cultures, almost half of the respondents have already experienced discrimination and abuse of power. In addition, around 65% have observed these toxic behaviours (see Figure 36). The situation is quite different in research cultures that are characterised by a high degree of cooperation, a positive communication and error culture, without simultaneously inducing performance-based competition. Here, the proportion of those who have observed discrimination or abuse of power (32% and 30% respectively) and those who have experienced such behaviour themselves (only about 15%) is significantly lower. The shares increase slightly when performance-related competition is simultaneously implemented in research cultures with a high level of cooperation (see Figure 36).
Overall, it can be said that the research cultures are characterised by a high degree of competition in the research field, but a high degree of cooperation and constructive collaboration in the working groups. In turn, there are hardly any differences between the subject groups when it comes to assessing competition. Overall, competition in the field is perceived much more strongly than competition within the organisation and even more so than competition in one's own working group. In the respective narrower environment, competition is perceived as somewhat stronger by respondents from the life sciences.
The work cultures in the workplace and in the working groups are characterised by mutual support, appreciative communication and a positive error culture in the vast majority of cases. Funding is provided more according to need than according to performance. Overall, these are characteristics that define a cooperative working environment, which predominates for 72% of respondents. Competition plays a dominant role in fewer work cultures (32%). In the humanities, there is slightly less mutual support than in team science, where people are more dependent on collaboration and division of labour anyway. In the engineering science, on the other hand, overstraining is more common.
The work cultures are also closely related to the work climate, as well as to risks of discrimination and abuse of power. In working environments with a cooperative work culture, the work climate is generally perceived as more productive, inspiring, and less often as overwhelming. At the same time, the risk of discrimination and abuse of power is significantly lower in these work cultures. In this respect, it is good to see that these work cultures also clearly dominate with 72% and that the riskier working environments are clearly in the minority. To sum up, cooperation promotes positive characteristics in the working group and inhibits overstraining. Performance-based competition in the work environment offers an opportunity to increase productivity somewhat, but it also increases the risks, e.g. of abuse of power, and fosters feelings of being overwhelmed, especially in contexts where there is little cooperation.