DEFINING THE CULTURE:Key Components of Culture, Individualism

<< GLOBALIZATION:Aspects of Globalization, Industrial Globalization

WHAT IS DIVERSITY?:Recruitment and Retention, Organizational approaches >>

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

LESSON 04

DEFINING THE CULTURE

Culture may be understood as:

· the set of common understandings expressed in language

· values, beliefs and expectations that members come to share

· a system for creating, sending, storing and processing information

· the collective of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group of people from another

The world culture has been derived from the Latin word cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate".

It generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity

significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or

criteria for evaluating, human activity.

Anthropologists most commonly use the term "culture" to refer to the universal human capacity to classify

codify and communicate their experiences symbolically. This capacity has long been taken as a defining

feature of the humans. Many observers have shown that there are cultural differences in:

o Self perception

Self perception is how people belonging to different culture look at themselves. For example,

in some cultures people are viewed as honest while in other people are cynical about each

other. Therefore, they act accordingly taking or not taking precautionary measures.

o Relationship with world

This refers to the inclination of the people to dominate their environment to, perhaps extract

the most out of it. Further, it also refers to the acceptability of other cultures. In simpler terms,

relationship with the world refers to the terms that people have with their environment and the

rest of the world.

o Time Dimension

Time dimension refers to the past, present or future orientation of the people in a culture. It

means that people in a particular culture may either be concerned about their future or present

or past. The Japanese culture is a future oriented while the American culture is considered to be

a present oriented.

o Public and private space

In some cultures, people prefer to be sitting alone in their cabins at their workplace, while in

other cultures, people tend to inclined towards common working space where they sit together

and work. Therefore, the public or private space orientation is also a differentiating feature of

cultures.

Key Components of Culture

A common way of understanding culture sees it as consisting of four elements that are "passed on from

generation to generation by learning alone":

1. Values

2. Norms

3. Institutions

4. Artifacts

Values comprise ideas about what in life seems important. They guide the rest of the culture. Norms consist

of expectations of how people will behave in various situations. Each culture has methods, called sanctions,

of enforcing its norms. Sanctions vary with the importance of the norm; norms that a society enforces

formally have the status of laws. Institutions are the structures of a society within which values and norms

are transmitted. Artifacts are things, or aspects of material culture.

Organizational Culture

Just as a country has a culture, organizations also have culture which is influenced by the national culture.

With respect to cultural differences affecting organizational psychology, two major researches need to be

quoted:

· Geert Hofstede's research; and

· Trompenaar's Research

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

Geert Hofstede's Research

Hofstede researched on 116,000 workers of IBM spread over 70 countries world wide. He discovered that

organizational culture differs in the following four terms:

· Power distance (acceptance of other's power)

· Masculinity/Femininity

· Indvidualism/collectivism

· Uncertainty avoidance

Power Distance Index (PDI) that is the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and

institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. This represents inequality

(more versus less), but defined from below, not from above. It suggests that a society's level of inequality is

endorsed by the followers as much as by the leaders. Power and inequality, of course, are extremely

fundamental facts of any society and anybody with some international experience will be aware that 'all

societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others'.

Individualism (IDV) on the one side versus its opposite, collectivism, that is the degree to which

individuals are integrated into groups. On the individualist side we find societies in which the ties between

individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his/her immediate family. On the

collectivist side, we find societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive

in-groups, often extended families (with uncles, aunts and grandparents) which continue protecting them in

exchange for unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political meaning: it refers

to the group, not to the state. Again, the issue addressed by this dimension is an extremely fundamental one,

regarding all societies in the world.

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

Masculinity (MAS) versus its opposite, femininity refers to the distribution of roles between the genders

which is another fundamental issue for any society to which a range of solutions are found. The IBM

studies revealed that (a) women's values differ less among societies than men's values; (b) men's values from

one country to another contain a dimension from very assertive and competitive and maximally different

from women's values on the one side, to modest and caring and similar to women's values on the other.

The assertive pole has been called 'masculine' and the modest, caring pole 'feminine'. The women in

feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in the masculine countries they are

somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap

between men's values and women's values. The following table shows some of the basic characteristics of

Feminine and Masculine societies.

Feminine societies

Masculine societies

Assertiveness ridiculed

Assertiveness appreciated

Undersell yourself

Oversell yourself

Stress on life quality

Stress on careers

Intuition

Decisiveness

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) deals with a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity; it

ultimately refers to man's search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to

feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations. Unstructured situations are novel,

unknown, surprising, and different from usual. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility

of such situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and

religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; 'there can only be one Truth and we have it'. People in

uncertainty avoiding countries are also more emotional, and motivated by inner nervous energy. The

opposite type, uncertainty accepting cultures, are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are

used to; they try to have as few rules as possible, and on the philosophical and religious level they are

relativist and allow many currents to flow side by side. People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and

contemplative, and not expected by their environment to express emotions.

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

Long-Term Orientation (LTO) versus short-term orientation: this fifth dimension was found

in a study among students in 23 countries around the world, using a questionnaire designed by

Chinese scholars It can be said to deal with Virtue regardless of Truth. Values associated with

Long Term Orientation are thrift and perseverance; values associated with Short Term

Orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and protecting one's 'face'. Both

the positively and the negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of

Confucius, the most influential Chinese philosopher who lived around 500 B.C.; however, the

dimension also applies to countries without a Confucian heritage.

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

The following table shows the ratings for some countries of the world on Hofstede's dimensions:

Country

PDI

IDV

MAS

UAI

LTO

Arab World

Australia

Canada

China

118

Denmark

France

Germany

Hong Kong

India

Indonesia

Israel

Italy

Japan

Malaysia

104

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Pakistan

Russia

Singapore

South Korea

Sweden

Switzerland

Taiwan

United Kingdom

United States

Trompenaar's Research

Trompenaar's research comprised 15000 managers in 28 countries. Having researched and written

extensively on how reconciling cultural differences can lead to competitive advantage, Fons Trompenaars is

now widely recognised as a leading authority on organisational culture.

To Fons Trompenaars, knowledge management is, or should be, fundamentally a cultural issue. "Data

becomes meaningful when you structure it in a certain way it becomes information. When you structure

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

information, it becomes knowledge, and when you structure knowledge it becomes science, it is the process

of structuring that adds meaning. And since different cultures have different ways of structuring meaning,

you can see that, by definition, knowledge management is a cultural construct."

He identified the following dimensions of culture:

o Universalism/Particularism practices applied universally and in particular countries

o Individualism/collectivism

o Neutral/Affective: emotions held in control; affective cultures emotions are openly expressed.

o Specific/diffuse: differences in public/private space sharing.

o Achievement/Ascription: stress of a person on his work/achievement, or stress on who a

person is

The first of these he identifies as the universal versus the particular, a dilemma that he explores in great

depth in his book, Did the Pedestrian Die? "Imagine you're going in a car, you're friend is speeding and he

hits a pedestrian. You come to court, and your friend's lawyer tells you not to worry, as you were the only

witness. You know he was speeding, but what right does your friend have to ask you to lie? Would you do

so?" This is a question that vividly demonstrates the divide between universalist and particularist thinking.

Trompenaars's research has revealed that 92 per cent of Americans, for example, would fall into the

universalist camp: respect to the truth and to the law overrides any notion of there being exceptions to the

rule. Conversely, the majority of those in South Korea, Venezuela and France (and indeed most of the Latin

world) would tend to a more particularistic standpoint: in Trompenaars's experience, most ask for more

information before they are able to decide whether they would lie for their friend, the most common

question being, did the pedestrian die?

In a corporate context, this cultural dilemma raises obvious difficulties for a knowledge manager,

particularly those operating in a multinational organization. Even on a functional level, it is a disparity that

needs to be addressed. As Trompenaar says, while HR, finance and marketing professionals are generally

Universalist in their outlook, salespeople tend to be more particularist they invariably demand exceptions

for their clients, for example. For a KM system to succeed, therefore, it must reconcile the two.

Implementing a standardized system in every office around the world and across functions will isolate the

particularist, just as allowing every office and department to develop their own approach to KM will lead to

chaos. "Mass customization is the reconciliation of the universal and the particular," he says. "You will not

solve knowledge management through one approach alone; it's about how you combine the two."

The second of Trompenaar's five dimensions is the individual versus the team, which is closely aligned to

the third: specific and codified versus diffuse and implicit knowledge. He himself relates "a short time ago

we worked with General Motors to help integrate its joint venture with Isuzu, a Japanese truck-producing

firm. Because their knowledge was so individualized, the Americans spent about 30 per cent of their time

codifying their knowledge and writing it up in handbooks and procedures. The Japanese, on the other hand,

never wrote anything down. Their knowledge was stored in the network of their relationships. This

infuriated the Americans, but in a group-oriented culture, you need other ways of communicating

knowledge. Whereas in an individualized society, there is a tendency to keep knowledge because knowledge

is seen as power, in Japan, knowledge is only knowledge when it is shared; your status is dependent on how

much you contribute to the group."

Eventually, GM's managers succeeded in convincing their Japanese counterparts to compile more concise,

less time-consuming manuals, which went some way to satisfying both parties, but the challenge of

reconciling the individual and the group, particularly in an international organization, is clear.

The last of Trompenaars's five dimensions of knowledge management relates to the disparity between

perceptions from the top down and from the bottom up. "Data about clients and products is stored in the

heads of individual staff members," he says. "Middle management translates it into information that in turn

is organized as knowledge by top management. For effective KM, the reconciliation of this dilemma can be

found in `middle-up-down', in which middle management is the bridge between the standards of top

management and the chaotic reality of those on the front line," he says. It can also be reconciled by the

`servant leader', he continues, a leader who connects the bottom with the top through the style with which

he or she leads, drawing their authority by serving the community as a whole. In Trompenaars's view, this is

an approach Goldman Sachs seems to have mastered.

Organizational Psychology (PSY510)

REFERENCES

Trompenaars, F., Did the Pedestrian Die? (Capstone Publishing, 2003)

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C., 21 Leaders for the 21st Century (Capstone Publishing, 2001)

Geert-Hofstede's research:http://www.geert-hofstede.com/geert_hofstede_resources.shtml

Detailed article on defining culture:

http://courses.ed.asu.edu/margolis/spf301/definitions_of_culture.html

FURTHER READING

· Dictionary of the History of Ideas: "culture" and "civilization" in modern times:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-73

· Countries and their Cultures: http://www.everyculture.com/

· Global Culture Essays on globalization, migration and their impact on global culture: http://global-

culture.org/

· What is Culture? - Washington State University: http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-

modules/top_culture/culture-index.html

· Define Culture - List of definitions of culture from people around the world:

http://www.defineculture.com/

· Arnold, Matthew. 1869. Culture and Anarchy. New York: Macmillan. Third edition, 1882, available

online. Retrieved: 2006-06-28.

· Forsberg, A. Definitions of culture CCSF Cultural Geography course notes. Retrieved: 2006-06-29.

http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~aforsber/ccsf/culture_defined.html

Table of Contents: