Clarity on culture

Culture consists of all transmitted social learning. It is the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret experience and generate social behaviour. In general, the term culture denotes the whole product of a person, group or society of intelligent beings.

Culture is often blamed for most of our wrong-doings. By the term culture we fundamentally mix up two concepts, national culture and organisational culture. Today's column will focus on the impact of national culture on organisational performance, with emphasis on the Sri Lankan scenario.

The term culture comes from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning 'to cultivate'. It generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Definitions of 'culture' reflect different theoretical bases for understanding or criteria for evaluating, human activity.

Culture consists of all transmitted social learning. It is the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret experience and generate social behaviour. In general, the term culture denotes the whole product of a person, group or society of intelligent beings.

It includes technology, art and science, and moral systems and the characteristic behaviour and habits of selected intelligent entities. In particular, it has specific and more detailed meanings in different domains of human activity.

Dutch anthropologist Gert Hofstede conducted a classic study (1980-2001) involving 53 national cultures. It shed much light on understanding cultures. He analysed a large database of employee value scores collected by IBM between 1967 and 1973 covering more than 70 countries, from which he first used the 40 largest only and later extended the analysis to 50 countries and three regions.

In the editions of his work since 2001, scores are listed for 74 countries and regions. The details of the five key dimensions as originally defined by him are:

This is the extent to which the less powerful members of organisations and institutions (such as 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 followers as much as by 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 vs collectivism

It means the degree to which people are integrated into groups. On the individualist side, societies can be seen in which the ties between people are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family.

On the collectivist side, societies are found in which people from birth are integrated into strong, cohesive 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 relating to all societies in the world.

Masculinity vs femininity

It refers to the distribution of roles between the genders, which is another fundamental issue for any society in 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'. Women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as men, in the masculine countries, they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as men, so that these countries show a gap between men's values and women's values.

Uncertainty avoidance: high vs low

It 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 the usual.

Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimise 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.

Long-term vs short-term orientation

This fifth dimension was found in a study among students in 23 countries, 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'.

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.

We are proud of our culture. At the same time, a conscious awareness of the shortcomings associated with certain cultural practices needs to be rectified. It is easier said than done.

As culture is 'collective mental programing', it takes time to re-program with the right mindset.

Sri Lankan leaders have a challenging task ahead in building a multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-skilled nation.

During such an endeavour, how would national culture impact organisational culture? How can we foster a performance-driven culture? What is the role of leaders in such an endeavour?

The next column of People Perspectives will address these aspects.

The writer is the Director of the Postgraduate Institute of Management. He also serves as an Adjunct Professor in the Division of Management and Entrepreneurship, Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, USA.