Internet dating a Co-Worker: will it be worthwhile?

by Kei Hisanaga | Mar 31, 2023 | Uncategorized

view full size

Country culture. Are majorit groups and minority groups very different

by Huib Wursten | Mar 23, 2023 | Uncategorized

Country culture. Are majority groups and minority groups very different?

Huib Wursten. Author and consultant

Sometimes it is taken for granted that minority cultures have different value preferences. It is certainly true at the level of the outside layers of culture:  Symbols, Heroes, and rituals. See below

Working in international organizations, three questions are almost always raised:

• I recognize what you are saying about my country. But the people in the North of my country are different from those in the South. The people in the West are different from the people in the East.
• This is a static description of what is going on in the world. In reality, we see rapid change everywhere.
• This is putting people in boxes. All people are different. This is stereotyping.

.

How to cope with these important questions? Below are some answers.

• Country culture and regional differences

Comparisons are always dangerous. But the best way is to compare the dominant culture with the grammar of a language system. In every language, there is a shared grammar system. The proper use of the grammar system is taught in schools, and tests and exams ensure that the grammar system survives the next generation. But in all countries, one can find differences in style and dialects. Nobody will deny that the basic grammar systems of English, Chinese, Russian and Sanskrit are different. Still, people sharing one basic grammar system can be different in style and dialect. Take the Scottish and the English. They share the same basic grammar system. Still, the Scottish are so different in style and dialect that even the English have a problem understanding what they say.

This is the way to understand most of the regional differences in culture. In almost all countries, people share a homogeneous (majority) culture. But styles and other elements of the superficial layers of culture can be different.

Cultural descriptions reflect the basic grammar of the dominant culture. In every country, one can find minorities with different outlooks. These minorities, however, tend to behave according to the majority’s preferences. This is because of a practical reason. The dominant culture sets the criteria for assessing success or failure. If minorities want to succeed, they learn quickly to take the requirements of the dominant culture into account.

People born and living in a certain culture see their culture as self-evident and normal. Deviation from the standard attracts attention and can be experienced as an emotional breach in expected behavior. For the people concerned, it can be seen as an argument that “culture is changing”. However, defining their behavior as the norm would be a mistake. They stand out just because they do not behave according to the norm.

Some empirical evidence

The limited empirical evidence available shows that on the basic value level, this is

questionable. The same is sometimes expected comparing generations.

Below are two graphics from the research done by Marieke de Mooij & Jake Beniflah (2016):

They used the Hofstede dimensions as starting point to see if the assumptions about minorities

and generations in the USA are correct.

As a reminder, the confirmed scores for the whole of the USA:

PDI:  40, IDV: 91 Mas:  62, UAI:  46

Below are the scores of minority groups:

The tentative conclusion is that small differences are certainly detected but that most minority groups score on the same sides of the Hofstede scale as the majority culture.

Do different generations have different values?

Again Marieke de Mooij & Jake Beniflah (2016) researched this assumption.

See below:

This means that the dominant rules of the game are shared by most of the groups. All this brings us to the next level of understanding culture: the rules of the game for policy making as defined by the combination of the four basic value dimensions. Leading us to the “Mental Images.”

But first, a few words on personality characteristics.

Culture, Human rights and DEI

by Huib Wursten | Mar 23, 2023 | Uncategorized

                                           Culture, Human rights and DEI

                                                                                 Huib Wursten. Author and consultant

The score on IDV affects the thinking about equal rights.

Collectivism is a political and social value system that emphasizes the importance of group identity and the collective good over the rights and interests of individual members. In collectivist societies, the needs and goals of the group are prioritized over the needs and goals of the individual, and the group is expected to work together for the common good as formulated by the top people. In Individualistic cultures, people identify more as members of voluntary social groups than members of clans.”

Henrich (Henrich 199) draws the contrasts this way: Individualistic obsess more about personal accomplishments and success than about meeting family obligations (which is not to say that other cultures don’t prize accomplishment, just that it comes with the package of family obligations). WEIRD people have a bad habit of universalizing their particularities. They think everyone thinks the way they do, and some of them (not all) reinforce that assumption by studying themselves. In the run-up to writing the book, Henrich and two colleagues did a literature review of experimental psychology. They found that 96 percent of subjects in the research came from northern Europe, North America, or Australia. About 70 percent of those were American undergraduates.  Individualistic people frequently assume that what’s good or bad for them is good or bad for everyone else.

For collectivistic societies, it is difficult to accept that individuals have the right to decide about moral issues. Religious institutions and their officials represent the traditional values, and they are the only ones in the position to “weigh” new developments like freedom of sexual preference and equal rights for women. It is not a coincidence that Putin, as leader of a huge collectivist country, is legitimizing his actions by saying that “we embody the forces of good in the modern world because this clash is metaphysical” and “We (the Russians) are on the side of good against the forces of absolute evil…. This is truly a holy war that we’re waging, and we must win it and of course, we will because our cause is just.  We have no other choice.  Our cause is not only just, but our cause is also righteous, and victory will certainly be ours.” Sergey Karaganov, connected to Russian President Vladimir Putin, predicted that democracy is failing and authoritarianism is rising because of democracy’s flawed moral foundations.  An interesting case here is the refusal by the captain of a Dutch soccer team to wear a rainbow armband at a time the Football union supported actions to promote gay rights. This captain from a Turkish-Dutch family publicly said it was about his Islamic religious beliefs. Many Dutch commentators reacted negatively by saying he should make his own decisions and understand he is a role model. What was not understood is that in his “in-group,” a Turkish migrant family, the religious in-group he belongs to is the reference and starting point for morality.  The key element is that in return for loyalty to the in-group, the in-group takes care of the group members.  Group convictions determine the preferences of individuals.  Individuals should be in harmony with the in-group’s thinking and interest.

Of course, this should not be understood in an absolute way. All human beings are, in principle, gifted with empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It is a crucial component of human relationships and is often seen as a key aspect of human morality and compassion. Based on a shared competence for empathy, one can say that universal human rights are rights that are inherent to all human beings and are not dependent on nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life, liberty, and security of person; the right to education and employment; and the right to a fair trial. But certainly, there can be tensions between collectivist and individualist perspectives on human rights. As discussed above, proponents of collectivism argue that the group’s needs should take precedence over the individual’s rights. Empathy can play a role in mediating these tensions by helping individuals to understand and feel the emotions and experiences of others.

A frequently asked question: is the declaration of human rights a Western concept?

The idea of human rights is not unique to the Western world, and the concept has a long history in many different cultures and traditions worldwide. However, the modern notion of human rights as we know it today has largely been shaped by the Western, Individualistic philosophical tradition and the experiences of Western societies. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), often considered the cornerstone of modern human rights law, was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The UDHR was influenced by various sources, including the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and the American Bill of Rights, as well as ideas and principles from other cultures and traditions worldwide.

While the UDHR has been widely accepted and adopted as a global standard for human rights, it has also been criticized by some as being a product of Western values and failing to reflect the diversity of cultures and traditions worldwide fully. However, as we showed above, it is important to emphasize that the concept of human rights is not exclusive to any one culture or tradition and that the universal protection of human rights is an important goal for people of all cultures and backgrounds.

However, it is also necessary to recognize that human rights are highly influenced by the “Enlightenment” in Europe and was a product of its time, shaped by the cultural, social, and political context of 18th-century Europe. There have been criticisms of the Enlightenment for its role in the development of white supremacy and colonialism, and these criticisms continue to be relevant in contemporary debates about social justice and equality.

At the same time, it is important to continue to dialogue and engage with different cultural and philosophical perspectives on human rights to ensure that the concept of human rights evolves and adapts to the changing needs and realities of the world.

Pressure on the Universalist nature of Human Rights

Several sources recently warned that the Universalistic nature of human rights is in danger because of attempts to create alternatives.

1. Gandhi said he learned from his mother that obligations precede rights. Rights without obligations are not worth fighting for. Leaders from China and some Eastern European countries share this attitude. The emphasis is on collective values and duties. The criticism of these cultures is that human rights are too focused on the rights of the individual.
2. Under the umbrella of the Organization of Islamic Co-operation (OIC; formerly the Organization of Islamic Conference), Muslim states revisited these concepts in the 1980s to draft their own instrument. The culmination of such efforts was the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which presented a set of rights informed by conservative Islamic values and “Sharia,” or Islamic law. Within the instrument, the OIC laid out many of the rights in the UDHR. However, it neglected gender and non-Muslim rights. Moreover, the organization co-opted the language of Sharia in the document to empower states and ensure national sovereignty. After its adoption, human rights activists in the West and some in the Muslim world claimed that the Cairo Declaration conflicted with the UDHR. In the early 2010s, the OIC began revising the instrument and introduced the OIC Declaration on Human Rights (ODHR) almost a decade later. The document was scheduled to be approved at the organization’s Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) meeting in April 2020. However, this was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the ODHR better reflects principles rooted in international human rights law, it falls short on freedom of speech and political participation issues.
3. China is working on an alternative to the UN Universal Rights based on “the right of Development of States.” Centrally guided progress is given priority over the individual rights of citizens. Professor Barbara Oomen says in an interview for the Dutch paper NRC: We are worried about the development of parallel systems of Human Rights. Universal Human Rights are meant as a bridge for all countries to keep talking to each other. If everybody is building their own bridge, the conversation stops quickly

Human rights and tolerance

Jamal Greene, a constitutional law professor at Columbia Law School, argues that our conception of rights as absolutes drive us into all-or-nothing conflicts in which one side necessarily wins and the other loses. In a pluralist society in which rights often conflict, this conception fails to create room for compromise and is to blame for polarization”.Rights should not be treated as absolute. Instead, rights may be restricted in the name of competing interests. This approach, often described as “proportionality review,” could acknowledge competing values and strike an appropriate balance between them. The rule of law is essential here. The main reason is that in a democracy, the majority prevails, so leaving disputes over minority interests to politics could mean dooming many such interests altogether. Human rights are about protecting those who cannot defend themselves through the democratic process, such as members of minority groups. We should have safeguards when the rights of minority groups are not protected through majoritarian procedures; we should defend democracy against the intolerant

Univesalism and particularism

It’s hard to generate empathy for individuals who are quite different from you, who are distant, who are a different ethnic group or speak a different language.

That becomes more difficult for you.. But the fact that we have it is really important. And once you have empathy, the capacity for it, you can try to mentally expand it. it’s hard to generate empathy for individuals who are quite different from you, who are distant, who are a different ethnic group or speak a different language.

to expand the rules for in our human moral systems. That’s a cognitive capacity that we have and that’s why we try to do things like that.

Primate psychology and universalism

Building bridges. Why are DEI programs frequently failing?

by Huib Wursten | Mar 23, 2023 | Uncategorized

         Building bridges. Why are DEI programs frequently failing?

                                                                         Huib Wursten Author and conultant

Abstract

This is the third of a series of articles on Culture, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

The first article described the need to understand the shorelines if you want to build bridges to achieve Inclusion. Sixteen of these shorelines were identified.

The second article discussed seven culture clusters with different “rules of the game” for decision-making and policy development. These rules of the game were connected to the key issues of DEI. For each Mental Image, one country was used as an example: the USA, the Netherlands, Germany, France, India, Nigeria and Japan

Keywords

Diversity, forcefield analysis, tolerance, organizational culture, DEI

The role of accountability and liability

DEI is a hot issue for organizations. Many leaders know that if they don’t do the right thing, they will get public opinion against them. And will damage their reputations. So avoiding a negative pres is a strong motivator to fight biased thinking.

But putting it on the agenda and not following up is one of the reasons the results are unsatisfying.

For one, we can learn from one of the main experts on change management: Forcefield analysis. He found that there are, at the most fundamental level, three stages to be recognized in Change Management: Unfreezing- Moving, and Freezing.

Next to that, we should look again at the concept of tolerance

1. Forcefield analysis. Pushing is not sustainable.

We started by defining open societies as those whose laws, customs and institutions are open to correction.

We also pointed out that these changes are not happening in a vacuum. The national culture is a consistent factor over time. As we can see from research until now, the values as found and defined by Geert Hofstede are consistent over time (see for nuance the repeated research by Beugelsdijk et al.) The other layers are more superficial. Nevertheless, they are important in creating emotional security for the majority culture. The consequence is that in case of a need to change rituals (black peter), Heroes (statues), and Symbols (crucifixes in public schools), it makes sense to make use of the strategies of change management.

Of course, there are many theories and models about change management. But one of the clearest and simplest is Lewin’s three-step model. The first step in this model is to ‘unfreeze‘ people; i.e., people need to understand why things should be done differently. This first step, the process of unfreezing, is culturally sensitive. This means that explaining why something should be done differently within the organization cannot be shown or “rolled out” identically in different countries. The second step in the model is ‘moving‘; i.e., new insights, attitudes, and skills are required after making people aware that they need to do things differently. Finally, the third step is ‘freezing‘; i.e., the newly acquired skills should be developed into a new routine. Even though this is one of the most basic models, most organizations tend to concentrate only on step two, moving, and forget steps one and three. This is a big mistake, especially since the essence of change management is understanding how humans behave. The secret to understanding effective change management is to realize that, concerning all individuals and groups, two forces are constantly at work: the force of change and resistance. These forces push and pull at each other and maintain a dynamic equilibrium.

We all like to do new things and improve our work. This is the nature of human beings. However, we also want to continue doing something we are good at, which gives us emotional security. When we apply our ‘routine‘, it gives us a positive feeling of mastering our environment. It also saves energy; it would be exhausting to invent the wheel daily. It is easy to see that if one starts pushing the force of change in this dynamic equilibrium, the force of resistance will push back.

Moreover, the harder the push, the harder the resistance will be. So to make change successful, it is essential to start doing something about the resistance to change. The way to do this is culturally dependent. So when considering rolling out a change program, one needs to understand the dynamics of change and resistance and how one needs to vary motivation styles due to cultural differences.

To take the stages at heart and to be more effective in running the DEI programs, we should take a four-step approach to DEI.

2. A four-step path to achieve successful implementation of DEI across cultures:

The first thing that international management should realize is that the influence of cultural differences should not be underestimated. In an interview with the Economist, Geert Hofstede said that culture is more often a source of conflict than synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster [1].” In the following text, we propose solutions for solving the potential pitfalls of cooperation in internationally diverse teams.

1. Identify Key Differences

    1.1 The emotional part

Some behavioral differences are superficial or may refer to personal preferences. Other differences are deeply embedded in the value systems of nations and strongly influence the preferences people have in leadership, management and assessment of what is right and what is wrong. But, it is important to accept that other approaches can also lead to success. But this is much more difficult than most people think.

It is not easy to put your firm convictions into perspective. After growing up in a culture where behaving in a particular way is considered logical, it can be impossible to believe that other approaches also work. Peter Drucker, an American management consultant and author of seminal books about management, expressed it even more astutely, “What managers do is the same worldwide, but the way they do it is embedded in their tradition and culture [].”

Yes, what we do is embedded in our tradition and culture, but not everyone is an equally effective manager. Of course, we can learn from each other. Jack Welch, the successful former CEO of GE, summarized what he learned from his experiences and shared his ultimate recipe for success: identify best practices everywhere and be able to translate these practices into the local value system.

To identify the key differences, it is recommended to “unfreeze” the possible resistance from also good willing participants (see above for change management). For example, resistance frequently comes from people who “don’t want to stereotype”, who “don’t want to put people in boxes,” or even people who deny that people are different.

A simple exercise can do the unfreezing. Asking everybody individually to

Write down in keywords: One positive example of diversity issues and one uneasy example (or puzzling element)

Experience shows that rarely do participants resist doing this. After sharing the exercise with others, they realize that they implicitly accepted differences.

• The rational part

-Ask participants to use the list comparisons to identify which of the 16 shorelines are applicable and perhaps add more

-Let the participants identify the different rules of the game.

2. Bridging the Gap

After the key differences have been identified, there is a need to find acceptable solutions for all parties concerned, i.e., bridging the gap.

                         2.1 The Wise Lesson of Jack Welch

Jack Welch was the CEO of General Electric. His peers saw him as one of the most experienced and effective international leaders. After retirement, the Financial Times interviewed him about how to deal with diversity in a multinational corporation.

In short, he advised that there are two elements in recruitment you should look at. Firstly, the people you recruit should be open-minded and willing to learn, and secondly, they should be able to identify best practices everywhere.

But, he explained, that is not enough! Best practices are predominantly related to a specific culture. Thinking you can blindly transfer best practices from one culture to another is naive. Thus, the next step is to be able to ‘translate’ these practices into the local value systems. Forcing people to do things against the basic values of their culture is counterproductive. The new ideas must be tailored to the Culture’s Mental Image(s). And in reality, different situations can be found: one for an international team in one location and one for a team cooperation across borders.

                              2.2 Different strokes for different folks

One of the standard remarks from managers about international leadership and management in multinational organizations is, “This is all very interesting. I have already heard about individual personality characteristics and am now hearing about cultural differences in leadership, motivation and DEI. This makes it very complex! Am I supposed to take this all into account? I have 20 people from 8 different countries on my team. You must be a wizard to address personality issues AND DEI sensitivities!”                                                                                                                                                                                                 A good response to this is, ‘Don’t force yourself!!’ Consider this an extension of your usual management task to understand how you have to motivate your employees according to their characteristics. As the saying goes, ‘Different strokes for different folks’. Some people are motivated by challenges and others need nurturing.

The basic principle is to identify key stakeholders carefully. If the key stakeholders are locals, then in principle, it is right to put the local “mental Image” at the center and to train individuals to understand how to operate. However, it becomes more complex when we talk about cooperation between international teams. Under these circumstances, how do we identify the predominant Mental Image to base the management style on? Is it naturally assumed that we follow the Head Office culture, or do we first consider the local culture because this is the context we are operating? Following the advice of Jack Welch, I recommend applying what is referred to in negotiating theories as ‘inclusive solutions’ or the ‘win-win’ approach.

                             2.3 What is inclusive thinking in negotiating?

Not surprisingly, as measured by Hofstede’s dimensions, the negotiation style used in different countries is mainly related to the diverse cultural backgrounds of the people within these countries. However, on the surface, this is not always clear because many theories are written in terms of social desirability (what looks good) and not social practice (what really works). One example is the so-called ‘win-win’ approach to negotiating. Surprisingly, the book on negotiation that coined the phrase ‘win-win’ (Roger Fisher et al. Getting to Yes) is from a Masculine (MAS) culture like the US. While at a bookshop in Washington DC I also noticed that the most popular book on negotiating was called: “How to be persuasive and how to win every time” – another common trait of Contest cultures like the US.

The most common misunderstanding about good (international) negotiating is about winning or losing. This is only true in a one-time negotiation – if you never meet again, it does not matter if one side feels like the loser. However, research shows that in interdependent situations where people are repeatedly meeting, it is dangerous to create negative feelings on the other side because the same people will try to get back at you the next time you deal with them. The best approach is to try to create a solution that is acceptable for both sides and to be careful not to exert too much pressure even if it is clear that your side is holding all the trump cards.

Repeating or rephrasing arguments is mostly unproductive. The best attitude is to analyze the interests of the parties involved and create a solution covering these interests. The skill that is needed here is to be able to create different scenarios with different mixes of interests. These scenarios sometimes can go beyond the situation here and now, also considering trade-offs that might lie in the future. In the cultural context, this means understanding the needs created by the rules of the game of the different Mental Images and formulating solutions.

• My suggestion to bridge this gap is to combine the above approaches to find a ‘win-win’ solution. First, try to satisfy the different cultural needs.

3. Integrating Difference

 The next step is to integrate the solutions, i.e., what to do to ensure the solutions are also working after the initial excitement

-The role of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) & the need to have a “Diversity officer

It is important to keep the ‘win-win’ mentality and the solutions intact, especially in times of tension. The task is to develop (internal) procedures considering the ‘bridging mentality’. Experience teaches us that negotiated solutions to bridge differences work as long as they are remembered and as long there is no crisis. People who work together are, in principle, well-intentioned and, after having attended a well-designed workshop, are willing to avoid stereotyping and biases. But when daily work takes over, and a zillion other things demand immediate attention, the procedural solutions tend to be forgotten. This is even truer when a crisis erupts. Under these circumstances, individuals naturally revert to their ‘natural’ behavior.

Moreover, when under pressure, people lose patience and become irritated about the behavior of others; they tend to be even obstructive. Therefore the previously negotiated solutions need to be secured in a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). An SOP is an approved document with instructions on how to solve conflicts or misunderstandings. The development of such procedures should happen in a period of relative rest to prevent a partisan approach. A second important step is to make one person responsible for applying the SOP if needed. This ‘SOP owner’ should be formally recognized with this responsibility and officially sponsored by a management team member. In essence, we are asking for a DEI officer in organizations to take care of this

4. Anchoring Solutions

 Lastly, solutions should be anchored. The role of Organizational Culture

Anchoring is only possible if the solutions are embedded in a company’s organizational culture. That means that management should give continuous attention to reinforcing the desired behaviors consistent with the organizational culture they want to foster and ensure that the solutions are fully integrated in the assessment and reward culture (depending on the relevant Mental Image). It is important here to distinguish between organizational culture and national or country culture.

Country culture and Organizational culture

Country culture is about VALUES. Research shows that values remain consistent over time. They are not static! New situations arise, and the systems must adapt to the new environment. The adaptations’ shape is not random but steered by the rules of the game of the Mental Image.

On the other hand, companies usually also have a set of guiding principles or ambitions that influence practices. Commonly referred to as “company values”. (However, in my opinion, these company ‘values’ should often rather be labeled as ambitions or guiding principles)

Organizational culture is about practices. However, contrary to the values, these practices can be easily changed to make a more functional organization. Organizational culture is how members of an organization relate to each other, their work and the outside world compared to other organizations.

After ensuring the “solutions” are working, the organization should try to ensure that the solutions fit the optimal organizational culture.

2. Tolerance

In a democracy, the majority prevails. Leaving disputes over minority interests to politics.is dangerous. Human rights are about protecting those who cannot defend themselves through the democratic process, such as members of minority groups. We should have safeguards when the rights of minority groups are not protected through majoritarian procedures; we should defend democracy against the intolerant

How universal is tolerance? Recent research has shown that morality predates religion on the level of what is common to all humankind. Frans de Waal, a Dutch ethologist, found in his study on animals that this is not even limited to human beings. He discovered that primates like Chimpanzees and Bonobos even share morality. Through his continuous research, he found two basic pillars of morality:

Reciprocity: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!”- This relates to a sense of fairness and justice.

Empathy: The ability to understand and to share the feelings of others.” –  It is safe to say that, in general, humans everywhere share the ability to be empathetic.

This is important as this enables us all to enjoy music, books, paintings, and dance, even from areas that are very remote from where we live and where we were raised. In short, to understand each other worldwide. In this sense, we can conclude that tolerance is universalistic as it reflects empathy and reciprocity.

Tolerance and Religious convictions in open democratic societies.

Tensions between human rights and religious convictions can be handled in different ways. The different approaches can be shown by comparing France and the USA

Whereas freedom of religion in the United States began as a defense of religion against the state, France’s started with a defense of the state against religion.

The American way is basically to promote the coexistence of different ethnic groups and religions; This approach emphasizes protecting the rights of minorities. However, the criticism is that this approach leads to a dangerous social and cultural fragmentation where the groups withdraw inside their bubble.

The French Republican model, according to Heinich (Heinich 2018), is on the other side. It is color-blind and universalist. Everybody can be French as long as the fundamental values of the Republic are supported. People of all races, religions, and backgrounds are treated as citizens with equal rights without differentiation. France maintains no register of people’s ethnicity or religion. A critical element of that model is the French concept of secularism, laïcité, a legacy of the French struggle against the power of the Roman Catholic Church. French policies such as banning Muslim headscarves in school, perceived by many French as combating religious coercion, are often criticized in the USA for imposing French identity on immigrants forcibly. To its critics, the French model does too little to improve the fate of Arab and African Muslims living in suburban public housing, the “banlieues” where youth unemployment runs sky-high, and many Islamist radicals are incubated. Conditions there have only worsened with the coronavirus pandemic.

DEI and Mental Images. The rules of the game

by Huib Wursten | Mar 23, 2023 | Uncategorized

                        DEI and Mental Images. The rules of the game.

Huib Wursten. Author and consultant

In the first of a series of articles on Culture, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, we emphasized the need to understand the nature of the differences if we talk about diversity before we can build bridges. These bridges are important if we want to tackle urgent global problems. We should define diversity without fear of being “canceled” and, of course, without biases.

It turns out that one can also distinguish a ‘typology of national culture’. In the next part, we’ll elaborate on this and describe six ‘Culture Clusters’ we call ‘Mental Images’. A mental image represents a cluster of countries that have certain characteristics (scores) in common

Studying the four culture scores of different countries on the distinctive dimensions already offers a better understanding of dealing with diversity. But it is not enough because it does not take into account that while each dimension is independent (each explains something distinct about a country), the most important real-life issues can only be clarified by analyzing how the dimensions interact

The key issue is that: the sum of the four dimensions is more than the sum of the parts. It creates something new. The combinations lead to seven different “pictures” in the mind of people of what society and organizations look like.   Hence the name of this picture “Mental Image”.

Japan is standing alone. No other nations share the Japanese combination. They have their own “Mental Image,”.

Two important features of Mental Images:

–Reducing complexity.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           There are over 200 countries in the world. Happily, we do not have to understand 200 distinct cultural types. The Mental Images reduce the complexity by defining “Culture-clusters “. Countries in such a cluster are not identical but share the same values. They are similar. The Mental Images are systematically compared on 24 organizational issues.

All clusters have different “rules of the game” for dealing with societal and political issues.                                                                                                                              These rules of the game are fundamental for understanding the shape of decision-making and the development of new policies.

In this paper, we will analyze the consequences for the approach of  DEI. It will be shown that DEI takes different shapes in all 7 Mental Images. The key issues in the USA are different from the issues in France, India, or Nigeria

Below, we’ll discuss the 7 Mental Images, the “rules of the game,” and the implications for DEI.                                                                                                                                           For every mental image, one country is analyzed as an example. Of course, there are variations in how the different countries within a cluster are coping with DEI. Mostly this is due to the special situation and context of the countries involved.

 Mental Images and DEI

CONTEST (example USA)

                                                                    Icon

Basic assumption: if you give people the freedom to compete, something good comes out.

The only important rules are the rules for continuous and fair competition. Checks and balances should be in place to ensure nobody can stifle the competition by winning forever. There should be a level playing ground with equal opportunity.

Important concepts: the invisible hand of the market, free speech, democracy, autonomy, equal rights, equal opportunity, self-reliance, decentralization of power, empowerment, enterprising, accountability, liability, no news is good news.

Definition of common interest:  well-understood self-interest. (Persuasion as a tool)

Decision-making: Decisions are made by a simple majority. Half plus one. The minority accepts that “the winner takes all.”

Thinking style: preference for quick decisions based on available information. Pragmatism: Inductive and action-orientated. Keywords: whatever works, best practices, “just do it”, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there, proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Motivation: competing, being the best, career steps, material rewards like a bonus, “making it”‘

Leadership: decisive generalist, ability to “think on your feet”, making quick decisions. Required competence: strategical thinking. An “academic “approach.is not appreciated. Profile as “practitioner “is appreciated

Important issue: accountability. As a leader, you get relative freedom of action for an agreed-upon time frame with operationalized targets. But the leader is held accountable for the results and, if needed, replaced.

DEI

In The Contest countries, the belief in the value of free competition and the resulting focus on winning and losing is a fundamental issue. The expectation is that if there is a level playing field for everybody, the market’s invisible hand will balance everything. This attitude is also amplifying the personality difference between progressives and conservatives. Together it leads to the tendency to polarize.

Universal Human rights are leading to a focus on identity. We want to be valued as individuals with unique selves. But we also want recognition for our group identity: as women, ethnic minority, or /and part of groups based on sexual preference. We want to be acknowledged as equals but also be entitled to reparation and redress in the case of previous unequal treatment.

Some years ago, Mark Lilla (Lilla.2016) analyzed the current understanding of democracy. He asserted that instead of focusing on an expansive vision of creating a shared future, politicians “slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, LGBTQ, and women voters at every stop. “He warns about this approach: “If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Unfortunately, as the data show, this was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions“.

Example: (New York Times 10-3-2021)

“California’s Department of Education published a draft of an ethnic studies “model curriculum” for high school students in 2019. It managed the neat trick of omitting anti-Semitism. The draft outraged many Jews. And they were joined by Armenian, Assyrian, Hellenic, Hindu, and Korean civic groups in a statement urging the California Department of Education to “completely redraft the curriculum.” In its original form, they said, the document was “replete with mischaracterizations and omissions of major California ethnoreligious groups.

The need for recognition is important to understand. People want to be themselves and to be recognized in the eyes of others. Identity politics stems from this desire. It does this by mobilizing a particular identity’s struggle for social recognition.

The problem often begins with stigmatizing, mainly because the people involved belong to a group that others see as inferior because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. In that case, ascription can be hurtful because it does not align with how people want to present themselves.

The tendency to polarize in the Contest cultures can lead to unintended and undesired consequences. As a result of the “identity wars,” members of the dominant white majority group in “Western” countries can feel threatened. This is happening because they think that their trusted “way of life” is under fire with the arguments of the Universal Declaration. Minorities in the Contest, Network, Machine and Solar system countries rightly claim their rights, sometimes accusing the majority culture of “crimes” committed in the past. Crimes like colonialization and enslavement. The difficulty is that, in principle, these crimes might be recognized by the majority culture. But at the same time, they sometimes feel uncomfortable being held accountable for events that happened in a distant past, driven by a separate set of convictions from that time. Suddenly being accused of racism and celebrating heroes that, in hindsight, are called mass murderers is uneasy. The polarization makes the color of the skin suspect in a reversed way in the fight between woke and anti-woke. Kanko, the Belgian author, writes: in their struggle for justice and against suppression, they tend to say that racism is “systemic, “meaning that the color of your skin determines whether you belong to the suppressed of suppressors. If you are white, you are automatically part of a system that excludes people of color.

The polarization makes “progressives” acknowledge the dramatic role of the white supremacy of the past and are aware that they should take a step back in the societal discussion. They should be conscious of “White fragility”.

The other reaction is the one that is fitting, especially the competitive conservative personalities.: making the “woke movement” suspicious and promoting the “anti-woke” ideas. Florida governor Ron DeSantis exemplifies this anti-woke polarization. He recently signed the “Parental Rights in Education” law. It restricted the ability of schoolteachers to mention sexual orientation or gender identity through grade 3.

Under the guise of protecting children, DeSantis claims that the principle that all people are equal—including sexual minorities—is incompatible with traditional religious values.

At his request, in March 2023, the Florida legislature approved a law banning public schools or private businesses from teaching people to feel guilty for historical events in which members of their race behaved poorly, the Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees (Stop WOKE) Act.

DeSantis has promised to defund all DEI programs at public colleges and universities in Florida.

This polarization is threatening democracy.

Network (Example The Netherlands)

                                          Icon:

 Basic assumption: society is a network of independent, autonomous equal stakeholders with different ideas but willing to find common ground.

 Important concepts: democracy, co-operation, autonomy, empowerment, incrementalism, co-optation (trying to get the enemy aboard), nobody owns the truth,

Definition of common interest: shared interest, defined by consensus, the participation of all stakeholders and incrementalism. “Emerging insight”

Decision-making: decisions are ideally made by involving all important stakeholders. Regardless of their level and status. In the end, all relevant stakeholders should support the decision

Thinking style: a combination of inductive and deductive thinking. Need for a conceptual framework that gives direction and is not too “academic” The focus is on what is doable to arrive at a consensus.

Leadership: The optimal profile is to act as a coordinator of independent stakeholders. There is a reluctance to believe leaders or managers can define what is good for the organization from a “higher “position.

Motivation: recognition as an autonomous stakeholder. Work motivation is very much connected to a feeling of autonomy inside their own “shop”. In general, people believe that they, more than others, know what is going on in their “shop” and what steps should be taken to improve the situation. In addition, people believe that the only way organizations can be effective is if all stakeholders are consulted from beginning to end and the focus is on finding shared interest.

Main  DEI issues in the Netherlands

1. Racial and ethnic discrimination: The Netherlands has a long tradition of tolerance and inclusion. Still, racial and ethnic discrimination exists. People from non-Western backgrounds, especially those with North African or Middle Eastern heritage, often face employment, housing, and education discrimination.

Ethnic profiling is an issue in the Netherlands. Ethnic profiling is the practice of law enforcement officers using race or ethnicity to decide who to stop, search, or question. There have been reports of ethnic profiling by police officers in the Netherlands, particularly towards people of North African and Middle Eastern descent.

In a 2020 report by the Dutch National Police, it was found that police officers were more likely to stop people with a non-Western background compared to those with a Western background. The report also found that the cars of people with a non-Western background were more likely to be searched. This suggests ethnic profiling is a systemic issue within the Dutch police force.

The Dutch Government has acknowledged the issue of ethnic profiling and has taken steps to address it. In 2020, the Dutch Government announced that it would invest in training programs for police officers to address unconscious bias and increase awareness of discrimination. The Government also set up a national hotline for people to report incidents of ethnic profiling by the police.

One of the biggest scandals related to ethnic profiling in the Netherlands is the so-called “racial profiling” by the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst). The scandal came to light in 2019 when it was revealed that the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration had unfairly targeted and discriminated against individuals with dual nationality or a non-Dutch background for years.

The Dutch Tax and Customs Administration had implemented a policy that flagged people with dual nationality or a non-Dutch background for additional checks and investigations into their eligibility for childcare allowance. This policy resulted in many families being wrongly accused of fraud, with many forced to repay large sums of money or face legal action. In addition, the policy disproportionately affected families with a Turkish or Moroccan background.

The scandal caused outrage in the Netherlands, with many people calling for accountability and compensation for those affected. As a result, the Dutch Government issued a public apology and launched an investigation into the matter. The investigation found that the policy was discriminatory, violated the principle of equal treatment, and there was institutional racism within the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration.

The scandal led to the resignation of several government officials, including the Secretary of State for Social Affairs and Employment and the Director-General of the Tax and Customs Administration. The Dutch Government has since implemented measures to address the discrimination and ensure that such practices do not happen again.

The black Pete controversy

The Zwarte Piet controversy, also known as the Black Pete controversy, is a longstanding cultural debate in the Netherlands surrounding the character of “Zwarte Piet” (Black Pete), who traditionally is portrayed as a blackface character with exaggerated stereotypical features during the annual Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas) festival. The controversy stems from the racist connotations associated with the portrayal of Zwarte Piet and the offense it causes to many people, particularly those of Afro-Caribbean descent. In line with the rules of the game of the Network countries, there have been efforts by the Dutch Government and civil society to address the controversy and find a solution that is respectful to all communities. Some of the solutions that have been developed include:

1. Gradual phasing out of blackface: Many municipalities and organizations have been gradually phasing out the use of blackface in the portrayal of Zwarte Piet, replacing it with more neutral makeup or different costumes.
2. Introduction of new characters: Some municipalities and organizations have introduced new characters, such as Chimney Piet or Rainbow Piet, to diversify the Sinterklaas festival and make it more inclusive.
3. Dialogue and education: The Dutch Government and civil society have been engaging in dialogue and education programs to raise awareness about the history and cultural significance of Sinterklaas and the controversy surrounding Zwarte Piet. While the controversy surrounding Zwarte Piet is still ongoing, these solutions demonstrate a willingness by some in Dutch society to address the issue and find a way forward that is respectful to all communities.
4. Gender inequality: The Netherlands has a relatively high gender equality index, but women still face challenges in the workplace, with lower representation in leadership positions and unequal pay,

A special cultural issue is here that many Dutch women prefer part-time work.

According to the Central Bureau of Statistics in the Netherlands, the rate is 70%!

One reason is that the Netherlands has a strong tradition of family values, and a high priority is placed on balancing work and personal life. As a result, many Dutch women prioritize spending time with their families and pursuing hobbies or other interests outside of work. The positive elements cited by women:

• Improved work-life balance: Part-time jobs often allows for more flexibility in scheduling, making it easier to balance work with other responsibilities like family or hobbies.
• Reduced stress: Working fewer hours can result in less stress and pressure, leading to better mental and physical health.
• More time for self-care: With fewer hours spent working, there may be more time available for exercise, relaxation, and other self-care.

In 2013, a book called “Mark Rutte, the Romance of a Dutch Politician” was published in the Netherlands, in which the author, Petra de Koning, accused the current Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte. of saying that Dutch women are lazy. According to the book, Rutte made this statement during a meeting with other European leaders in Brussels in 2012 when discussing the Dutch preference for part-time work. However, Rutte later denied making the statement and said the quote was taken out of context.                                                                                             Another criticism is the tendency for “Part-time elitism”. Part-time elitism in the Netherlands refers to a cultural phenomenon in which part-time workers are often regarded as superior or more virtuous than those who work full-time. This part-time elitism can manifest in various ways, such as:

• The perception is that part-time workers are better able to balance work and family life and that those who work full-time are less committed to their families.
• The belief is that part-time workers have a better work-life balance and are, therefore, happier and more fulfilled.
• The idea is that part-time work is more ethical or sustainable, as it allows individuals to pursue other interests and reduce their carbon footprint.

Critics argue that part-time elitism is misguided and ignores the economic and societal benefits of full-time work, such as career advancement, job security, and economic growth. Nevertheless, there is an ongoing debate about the societal value of part-time work and the role of women in the workforce.

Covenanting: a political solution for solving difficult issues in the Netherlands

Covenanting is a common approach for solving difficult problems in the Netherlands, particularly in the context of environmental and social policies. A covenant is a voluntary agreement or contract between parties, typically between the Government, businesses, and civil society organizations, that outlines their mutual obligations and responsibilities for achieving specific policy goals. Because covenants are not hammered in stone, they cover an essential part of Dutch culture: incrementalism. Covenanting can effectively achieve policy goals by bringing together diverse stakeholders and encouraging collaboration and co-operation. By working together through a covenant, stakeholders can share information, resources, and expertise to develop innovative and effective solutions to complex problems.

One example of covenanting in the Netherlands is the Dutch Energy Agreement, signed in 2013 and brought together over 40 parties, including government agencies, industry associations, and environmental organizations, to develop a roadmap for a more sustainable and renewable energy future. The agreement set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing renewable energy production, and improving energy efficiency, and provided a framework for co-operation and collaboration between the various stakeholders.

Another example is the Dutch Climate Agreement, which was signed in 2019 and brought together a wide range of stakeholders to develop a plan for achieving the country’s climate goals. The agreement includes measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote renewable energy, and improve energy efficiency, and involves commitments from Government, businesses, and civil society organizations.

While not a covenant in the strict sense, it is worthwhile to look at how the Dutch achieved in regulating a highly sensitive issue like euthanasia. Conservative groups in the Netherlands may agree with euthanasia for various reasons. One reason is that the Dutch system of euthanasia is based on the principle of individual autonomy and personal choice, which aligns with conservative values of personal responsibility and freedom. Conservative groups also tend to support euthanasia because it provides a way to alleviate the suffering of terminally ill patients who are in great pain and have no prospect of recovery. For these groups, euthanasia can be seen as a humane and compassionate way to end a patient’s suffering.

Moreover, some conservative groups in the Netherlands may view euthanasia as a way to reduce healthcare costs, as it may be less expensive than prolonging a patient’s life through medical treatments. Of course, not all conservative groups in the Netherlands support euthanasia, and there is ongoing debate and discussion about the ethical and legal implications of the practice. However, until now, conservative groups mostly find common ground, or in the context of this paper, “shared interest” with supporters of euthanasia.

Another issue is abortion rights. The country has a long history of progressive social policies, including legalizing abortion in 1981. As a result, even conservative groups in the Netherlands may be more likely to support abortion rights than conservative groups in other countries where the issue is more divisive.

Conservative groups in the Netherlands support abortion rights as a way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which can have economic and social costs for society as a whole. In addition, by allowing women to access safe and legal abortion services, conservative groups argue that they are helping to prevent unintended pregnancies and supporting responsible behavior.

Well oiled Machine (Example Germany)

Icon

Key reference: Principled, balanced interest formulated by experts                                                                                                                                                              System: deductive, need for systematic thinking and order.

Important concepts: the principled, internalized need for order, plan and structure, procedural systematic.

Decision-making: systematic and procedural”, planmaesig handeln” Experts and expert information play an important role. The key is, agreed, balanced and informed proposals by experts. Beforehand it should be clear how decisions are made: half plus one, majority, or consensus. It is all acceptable if this is decided before the issues are discussed.

Leadership: the most important competence is the perceived deepness of expert knowledge.

Motivation: recognition as an expert, career, access to status symbols (type of car, amount of windows in the office, privileges in the organization like access to special restaurants, et.

Thinking style: deductive. First, gather as much information as possible. Identifying what experts in the past and present have already said about the subject. Then formulating principles for the action to be taken., followed by a detailed planning

DEI issues:

Germany has been grappling with diversity, equity, and inclusion issues for decades as a country with a significant immigrant population. Some of the main problems:

1. Racism and Xenophobia: People of color, including immigrants and refugees, face discrimination and marginalization in various areas of life, including education, employment, and housing. Racism and xenophobia are also pervasive, with a rise in far-right political movements and hate crimes in recent years.
2. Islamophobia: Muslims in Germany face discrimination, stigmatization, and even violence due to their religion. The Government’s policies, such as the ban on full-face veils in some public spaces, have contributed to this issue.

Addressing these issues requires the active participation and collaboration of all sectors of society. It involves developing “principled” policies and programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, combat discrimination, and increase opportunities for marginalized communities. Education, awareness, and advocacy are critical to creating a more just and equitable Germany.

The “Köln” effect and the German society                                                                                                                                                                                                             This goes back to the New Year’s Eve incidents in Cologne in 2015, where a large number of women were sexually assaulted and robbed by groups of men, primarily of North African and Arab descent.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The events of that night had a significant impact on German society and its political landscape. The incident led to widespread public outrage, particularly towards the police and the Government’s response to the attacks. In addition, there were debates about immigration policy, integration, and security. Many Germans, including politicians, expressed concern about the country’s ability to integrate immigrants and refugees from different cultural backgrounds. The incident also increased anti-immigrant sentiment, with far-right groups using it to push their anti-immigrant and anti-Islam agenda. This, in turn, led to a rise in hate crimes and anti-immigrant protests across the country. Furthermore, the incident also led to changes in law enforcement policies and practices, with the Government introducing new measures to combat sexual violence and improve public safety.

Another cause of unrest is the issue of Lebanese gangs in Berlin, particularly in recent years.                                                                                                                         These gangs, primarily composed of young men of Lebanese origin, have been involved in criminal activities such as drug trafficking, extortion, and violent assaults. The German government and law enforcement agencies have taken several measures to address this issue, such as increasing police presence and launching investigations into the gangs’ activities. However, some have criticized these efforts as insufficient to combat the problem fully.               In addition, Lebanese gangs have also become a political topic, with far-right groups using it to push their anti-immigrant and anti-Islam agenda. This, again, has led to an increase in xenophobic sentiment and hate crimes.

However, most Germans citizens don’t condone or support criminal behavior, regardless of the perpetrators’ ethnic or cultural backgrounds. On the contrary, the majority believes in the rule of law and wants to see criminal gangs brought to justice, regardless of their origins.

Solar System (Example France)

                                            Icon

 Key reference: acceptance of top-down policy-making within the framework of human rights.  The people at the top are accepted in formulating the common good but are constraint by a rule of law that guarantees the individual rights of citizens                                                                                                                                               System: top-down, deductive, individual rights, intellectualism

Important concepts: centralization, Tension between accepting hierarchy and top-down decision-making, and awareness of individual rights. People respect what you inspect.

Decision making: top-down. The top person has the privilege of decision-making. Others can be involved. But after a discussion, the top person must be clear about which decision has been made.

Leadership: Highly visible intellectual, able to “play the system”.

Motivation: the logic of honor, career

Thinking style: deductive: gathering first all available information about what is known about a certain subject before actions are taken. After formulating the” Philosophy”, action actions can follow. Relevant sayings: “By the clash of opinions, the truth comes out” and “Cogito ego sum, I think, so I exist”.

DEI issues:

France is a culturally diverse country with a history of immigration and a multi-cultural society. However, there are still several issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the country. Some of the main problems:

1. Racism and Xenophobia: France has a significant immigrant population, and people of color often face discrimination and marginalization in various areas of life, including education, employment, and housing. This has led to ongoing protests and social unrest in recent years.
2. Islamophobia: France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, but Muslims face discrimination, stigmatization, and even violence due to their religion. The Government’s policies, such as the ban on the hijab in public spaces, have contributed to this issue.
3. Socioeconomic Inequality: There is a significant wealth gap in France, with people from marginalized communities and low-income families experiencing limited opportunities for education, employment, and social mobility.

 Religion and state.

Many cultural differences go back to how religion and state deal with the need to separate powers.

Central question is: Is freedom of religion a defense of religion against the state or protection of the state against religion?

The French model is hierarchical but also universalist and color-blind. Everybody can be French as long as the fundamental values of the Republic are supported. People of all races, religions, and backgrounds are treated as citizens with equal rights without differentiation. France maintains no register of ethnicity or religion. A critical element of that model is the French concept of secularism, laïcité, a legacy of the French struggle against the power of the Roman Catholic Church. Whereas freedom of religion in the United States began as a defense of religion against the state, France’s started with a defense of the state against religion. So French policies such as banning Muslim headscarves in school, perceived by many French as combating religious coercion, are often criticized for imposing French identity on immigrants forcibly. To its critics, the French model does too little to improve the conditions of Arab and African Muslims living in suburban public housing, the “banlieues” where youth unemployment runs sky-high, and many Islamist radicals are incubated. Conditions there have only worsened with the coronavirus pandemic.

 Universalists and Multi-Culturalists:

France is a rule-based democracy. All citizens are supposed to be free and equal. But France is also a multi-cultural society with minorities that, based on their religious value system, have a problem with homosexuality and the equal position of women.

This led to a strong societal discussion between so-called Universalists and Multi- Culturalists. The latter group wants that the values of the minority cultures should be taken into account even if they don’t accept equal rights for women and gays. Enforcing human rights is marginalizing and excluding these minority groups is the argument.

The need for inclusion is the central dilemma. A solution cannot take the shape of putting people in prison for not accepting the “Universal” values.

A solution could be to make a distinction between Norms and Values. Values cannot and should not be enforced. However, norms and borderlines for behavior are part of the law. Therefore, trespasses can be enforced without theological discussions.

Pyramid (Example Nigeria)

Icon

Assumption: society is like a pyramid with an existential difference in power positions. Everybody has a rightful place in this Pyramid. Loyalty is in the first place to people of in-group. (extended family, tribe, ethnic group, religious group, powerful family)

Important concepts: acceptance of hierarchy, centralization of power, implicit order, formality, loyalty to in-group first, sensitivity for high context communication

Leadership styles: A good leader is like a parent with moral competence: in return for loyalty, taking care of people. The person at the top makes the decisions and then cascades down mandates with explicit directions. An important saying is: “people only respect what you inspect.

Decision-making: top-down. Actions are taken only after the top person makes a clear decision and shows commitment.

Thinking style: deductive. Experts and academics get high esteem

Motivation: Career, status, managing others, being connected to the right levels

DEI issues

Nigeria has a diverse population of over 250 ethnic groups, each with its own rituals, language, and tradition. But unfortunately, the diversity in Nigeria has also led to discrimination, marginalization, and inequality. Here are some of the main issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in Nigeria:

1. Ethnic and Religious Discrimination: Discrimination based on ethnic or religious affiliations is a major issue in Nigeria. Many Nigerians face discrimination and marginalization based on their ethnic or religious backgrounds, resulting in conflict, violence, and even loss of life.
2. Gender Inequality: Women and girls in Nigeria face numerous challenges, including limited access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. They are often subjected to violence and discrimination, and their voices are often excluded from decision-making.
3. LGBTQ+ Rights: Nigeria criminalizes same-sex relationships and has some of the harshest laws against homosexuality in the world. LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination, harassment, and violence and are often denied healthcare, housing, and employment access.
4. Disability Rights: People with disabilities in Nigeria face numerous barriers to full participation in society, including limited access to education, employment, and public spaces. They also face discrimination and stigma, leading to social exclusion and marginalization.
5. Inequality in Education: Access to education in Nigeria is not equitable, with many children from low-income families, rural areas, and marginalized groups unable to attend school. This perpetuates cycles of poverty and inequality and limits the potential of individuals and communities to thrive.

Recent research about the state of diversity, equity, and inclusion among the leading companies in Nigeria was done by a team of Hofstede Insights Group Nigeria (NIGERIA DEI REPORT 2022)

The report had four key parameters:  Gender Diversity, Age Diversity, Ethnic Diversity and Educational Background

As can be expected in a Pyramid country, ethnic diversity was found to be a key challenge. The researchers looked at the composition of Boards & Exco members in Nigeria’s Leading Companies.

The results show unequal representation. The South West, the territory of mainly one tribe, the Yorubas, was represented more than other regions and tribes: 43%. The South East, dominated by the Igbo ethnic group, had only 21%. The South-South 12 % and other regions altogether only 11% of corporate leadership,

Family (Example India)

Icon:

Key reference: common good as formulated by the top of the dominant in-group

System: rewarding loyalty, trust, and social control. Frequently long-term orientation

Important Concepts: Acceptance of hierarchy, Centralization, loyalty, loyalty to in-group is central, protection in return of loyalty, upward critical feedback is not acceptable, people respect what you inspect, indirect (high context) communication is seen as civilized,

Decision making: top down. After the decision, subordinates expect detailed instructions.

Leadership: parentlike behavior. Strict but fair. Rewarding loyalty by taking care of people.

Motivation: managing others, status, career, and being connected to influential people.

Thinking style: inductive, focusing on problem-solving

DEI issues

India is a diverse country with a complex social structure, and several issues are related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Here are some of the main problems:

1. Caste Discrimination: The caste system, a social hierarchy that has existed for centuries in India, persists and results in discrimination against people from lower castes, also known as Dalits. This discrimination can affect their access to education, employment, and housing.
2. Religious Tensions: India is a secular country with a significant population of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs. However, there have been tensions between these communities, with communal violence and discrimination against minorities.
3. Gender Inequality: Women in India face numerous challenges, including limited access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. They are often subjected to violence and discrimination, and their voices are often excluded from decision-making.

Japan

Icon:

Key reference: balanced interest between all (in-group) stakeholders                                                                                                                                                     System: rewarding loyalty, trust, and social control. Long-term orientation, focus on harmony.

Important concepts: Dynamic equilibrium, constant improvement, perseverance, reading between the lines, Upwards critical feedback is not rewarded

Decision-making: intensive consultations top down and bottom up (Ho-Ren-So), careful weighing of proposals.(Megawashi)

Leadership: s strict but fair, parentlike style. Rewarding loyalty

Motivation: loyalty to the organization, fitting in, constant improvements

Thinking style: deductive. First, gathering and weighing all information before actions are taken.

DEI issues:

Inclusion in Japan focuses on two fundamental questions:

1. Does an individual feel they have a high sense of belonging as an insider within their workgroup?
2. Does an individual feel their uniqueness has high value within their workgroup?

Professor Shore and her colleagues explain pseudo-inclusion, or the balance between belonging and uniqueness, in “Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A Review and Model for Future Research,” with four key features: exclusion, inclusion, assimilation, and differentiation. In their efforts for diversity and inclusion, Japanese companies tend to focus on unity and being a member of the organization. They tend to lean toward “assimilation,” which leads to homogenization and loss of uniqueness.

Culture, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

by Huib Wursten | Mar 22, 2023 | Uncategorized

               Culture, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

                         To build bridges, you must know where the shorelines are.

                                                         Huib Wursten. Author and consultant

*This is the first of five articles on culture and diversity. The other papers are available through the links inserted in this paper. Titles and links:

-DEI and Mental Images: https://culture-impact.net/dei-and-mental-images-the-rules-of-the-game/

-How to make DEI programs more effective, https://culture-impact.net/building-bridges-why-are-dei-programs-frequently-failing/

– DEI and human rights. https://culture-impact.net/1621-2/

-DEI, majority cultures and minorities. https://culture-impact.net/country-culture-are-majorit-groups-and-minority-groups-very-different/

Abstract

If we talk about diversity and inclusion, we need to know where the shorelines are before we can build bridges.

In this article 15 shorelines will be discussed. Mainly based on diffrences in country culture and diffrences in Personality as they are according to the author the deepest layer.

Keywords:

Country culture, Personality differences, Gravitational influence, Value preferences.

First, let’s discuss inclusion: the need to be seen and recognized.

Culture and DEI

A first question is: why is inclusion important?

-Democracy

Inclusion needs to be understood in the context of a functioning democracy.. Democracy is not simply about “the will of the people”. It is about accepting that different groups have different interests and outlooks on life in every society. Democracy is about a system to “balance” the diverse interests and find peaceful solutions for tackling problems. It requires that people from different groups feel represented.

-Sense of belonging

It creates a sense of belonging for individuals in various social and organizational settings. Inclusive practices recognize and value individual differences in terms of culture, ethnicity, gender, age, ability, sexual orientation, and religion, among others. By creating an environment that accepts and celebrates differences, inclusion allows individuals to feel valued, respected and accepted for who they are, rather than being excluded or discriminated against. Individuals who feel included are more likely to engage in collaborative work and contribute to a positive work culture. Inclusion can lead to greater creativity, innovation, and productivity, as people with diverse backgrounds and experiences bring different perspectives and ideas to the table.

-We are in it together, but there is no we

At a Nexus web conference in March 2021, intellectual giants like Hariri, Kahneman and Thomas Friedman discussed what is happening in the world and what they expect about the future.

Friedman showed how trends like globalization, digitalization and the climate and energy transition are accelerating and deepening, strongly affecting our minds. This includes how algorithms influence our preferences and opinions by the way they use big data. Friedman said we must tackle these urgent global problems by forming complex, adaptive coalitions.

Hariri was eloquently elaborating on how history is about storytelling, not just about the past but also the present and the future. To him, storytelling adds meaning to the bits of information we get every second.

Kahneman was rather reluctant to make sweeping statements. Instead, he simply reacted to the first two speakers saying, ” There is no we.

This is the heart of the problems. If there were an elected world government, all issues could be tackled with a consistent point of view. But there is no such centralized decision-making unit.

We see fragmentation and polarization between “Identity groups” originating from cultural and religious “clans.” Some feel neglected in liberal open democracies where the rule of law prioritizes equal rights and treatment. The need to be seen and recognized is a precondition to living in peace with each other. But parallel to this struggle, there is also an urgent call not to forget that there is a need to look into the future and solve the accelerating and deepening global problems. We are in this together.

Geert Hofstede warned against being too optimistic about achieving this feeling of “we are in this together” He famously said: “The survival of mankind will depend to a large extent on the ability of people who think differently, to act together.”

The challenges for “we are in it together.”

Thinking about inclusion, a recurrent theme is how to cope with racism and discrimination of minorities.

As professionals in cultural differences and its consequences, we are asked to give our opinion.

The only right answer is, of course, that we are against racism and discrimination and are in favor of inclusion.

The complexity starts after this simple principled answer. For instance, for whom is this relevant? The discussion is especially taking place in so-called “open democratic societies.”

An open democratic society is one whose laws, customs and institutions are open to correction by the continuous and free exchange of arguments and counterarguments among the societal stakeholders. This contrasts with a closed society based on revelations or a doctrine protected against falsification, rejection, or discussion.

An open democratic society cannot be culturally neutral since it emphasizes values regarding individuals’ equal worth and dignity. Therefore, open democratic societies have a value system in which the individual is at the core of moral thinking and behavior:   Equal rights for all individuals and minorities.

Value diversity in this thinking is something to be practiced largely in such a way that it would not lead to any serious violations of the individual rights of others.
Citizens in open societies are expected:

1. to accept other parts of the population as equals and
2. not to close their eyes to racism and discrimination and
3. to realize how much easier it is to be born as a member of a cultural majority.

A morality touchstone

To have a morality touchstone after the second world war, the Universal Declaration of Human rights was formulated to make it possible to have judgments about what is right and wrong. Again: the focus of all thinking about morality in this Universal Declaration of Human Rights is:  All Individuals have equal rights. This also extends to minority groups. The formulation explicitly says that the rights are for everybody, not regarding color, race, gender, religious affiliation, and sexual preference. It is important to understand that 195 countries sign the declaration. As a result, in case of abuse, single countries can be held to account. Usually, this is done by naming and shaming.

Diversity

The usual way to define diversity in DEI programs is to relate it to gender, ethnicity, color, and sexual preference. However, lately, other elements are proposed to be considered:  diversity of class, ideology and thought.

What does it mean if people talk about diversity.?

Frequently it is assumed that, in principle, people are the same everywhere.

Most leading research is done by western scholars among western people. For a very long time, economists, psychologists, and sociologists from especially one of these cultures, the Contest, based their arguments and findings on ‘evidence-based approaches’ without considering the origin and gender of the people in their samples.

Evan Watters concluded in ‘We aren’t the World’: “Economists and psychologists worked with the convenient assumption that their job was to study the human mind stripped of culture. It was agreed that the human brain is genetically comparable around the globe, so human hardwiring for much behavior, perception, and cognition should then be universal.)

In the last decade, the insight that these assumptions create a bias is gaining ground. Several examples can be found of either the problematic elements of these assumptions or research being done to discover or prove differences in gender, ethnic origin, or culture.

In the 2015 annual report, the World Bank Group states that a more behavioral approach would be more effective than the purely economic approach based on the assumption that people act rationally and self-interestedly. (*3)

The report argues that a more realistic account of decision-making and behavior will increase the effectiveness of (development) policies.

In this report, three main principles are recognized and used to build a framework:

• People think automatically. This means ‘intuitive, associative, and impressionistic. The automatic system is ‘the secret author of many choices and judgments you make’. This automatism creates the possibility of making fast and efficient decisions.
• People think socially. Humans are social beings and tend to comply with their social environments. This also means they are interested in others’ welfare and not exclusively their own. Therefore, they are willing to work and cooperate.
• People think with mental models. To deal with the vast amount and complexity of information in their environment, humans create and use categories, schemas and ‘taken-for-granted’ worldviews to understand and cope with all kinds of situations. The social environment and institutions enhance and shape people’s thinking and the alternatives they can imagine. Over time and history, these mental models become ‘internalized’ and these thinking patterns with corresponding assumptions about the world and fellow humans seem ‘natural’ and inevitable even though other possibilities, perceptions, and interpretations might exist and be available. These ‘mental models’ seem to be vastly shaped and influenced by the cultures of humans.

 In the world bank report, the above notions lead, among others, that the way information and decisions are framed influences the effectiveness of interventions.

In international organizations, the importance of understanding cultural differences in values, communicational styles and “ways of doing business” has been recognized for quite a while, instigated and influenced by thinkers and researchers such as Geert Hofstede.

Since then, the insight that cultural factors are important for understanding the world has increased.

Even stronger, people are getting aware that culture has a “gravitational influence “on behavior in general, including ideas about diversity. In an interview with the “Economist”, Hofstede pointed out that the discussions about diversity tend to ignore the consequences of national culture and to be too superficial and positive about the sustainability of the diversity consensus.

He said that culture is more often a source of conflict than synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster.”

This, of course, needs further clarification. Also, the role of personality differences will be discussed.

                                                 The shorelines:

National culture as a source of priorities and preferences.

The Hofstede dimensions of culture (Hofstede2001, Hofstede et al. 2010) represent a well-validated operationalization of differences between the cultures of present-day nation-states as manifested in dominant value systems.

Five elements are of utmost importance for understanding that culture has a gravitational influence on behavior:

• The definition of culture: it is about the collective “programming” of the mind that distinguishes one group or category of people from another.” This definition stresses that culture is (1) a collective, not an individual attribute; (2) is not directly visible but manifested in behaviors; and (3) common to some, but not all people. We are talking about the preferences of most people most of the time; (4) – is about subconscious preferences. Most people are unaware of their programming.-
• The cultural dimensions are the outcome of factor analysis. They represent the fundamental issues all human beings everywhere must cope with; Country culture is about how nations differ in their coping approach.

So, the dimensions are not a random collection of factors that emerged from haphazard situations; instead, they reflect the basic value dimensions.

• The dimensions are evidence-based by repeated research, validated over more than 50 years, with regular repeats trying to falsify the outcomes.
• Cultural differences are determined by how the dominant majority in different countries address those issues. So we are talking about the central tendency in a bell curve.
• Each country has a ‘score’ on each of the fundamental dimensions, reflecting the central tendency. The scores go, in principle, from 0 to 100. These scores, in turn, provide a ‘picture of a country’s majority culture. Hofstede’s approach is clear, simple, and statistically valid.

By this set of 4 value dimensions, it is possible to describe how culture, in a decisive way, defines diversity. But please remember, we are talking about central tendencies. Not about individuals. The relationship between the majority and minority cultures is complex and will be analyzed below.

The cultural shorelines. The elements of gravitation

 The four confirmed value dimensions

1. Small Power distance versus Large Power distance

Power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept that power is distributed unequally. People in countries scoring low, like the US, Canada, the UK, Scandinavia, and the Netherlands, are likely to accept ideas like autonomy, empowerment, decentralization, participative decision making and flat organizations. Business schools worldwide tend to base their teachings on low power-distance values.

Yet, most countries in the world have a large power distance. In Large power-distance cultures, people accept existential hierarchy and centralized decision-making.

2. Individualism versus Collectivism

In individualistic cultures, Individual rights and obligations are the center of value preferences. People believe in Universalistic values. The rights and obligations are (or should be) valid everywhere. The rule of law guarantees human rights.

In collectivist cultures, people belong to in-groups who look after them in exchange for loyalty. The value orientation is particularistic, applicable to people of the in-group

Identity is based on the social network to which one belongs. The score on IDV affects the thinking about equal rights.

Collectivism is a value system that emphasizes the importance of group identity and the collective good over the rights and interests of individual members. In collectivist societies, the needs and goals of the group are prioritized over the needs and goals of the individual, and the group is expected to work together for the common good as formulated by the top people. In Individualistic cultures, people identify more as members of voluntary social groups than members of clans.”For collectivistic societies, it is difficult to accept that individuals have the right to decide about moral issues. Religious institutions and their officials represent the traditional values, and they are the only ones in the position to “weigh” new developments like freedom of sexual preference and equal rights for women. It is not a coincidence that Putin, as leader of a huge collectivist country, is legitimizing his actions by saying that “we embody the forces of good in the modern world because this clash is metaphysical” and “We (the Russians) are on the side of good against the forces of absolute evil…. This is truly a holy war that we’re waging, and we must win it and of course, we will because our cause is just.  We have no other choice.  Our cause is not only just, but our cause is also righteous, and victory will certainly be ours.” Sergey Karaganov, connected to Russian President Vladimir Putin, predicted that democracy is failing and authoritarianism is rising because of democracy’s flawed moral foundations.  An interesting case here is the refusal by the captain of a Dutch soccer team to wear a rainbow armband at a time the Football union supported actions to promote gay rights. This captain from a Turkish-Dutch family publicly said it was about his Islamic religious beliefs. Many Dutch commentators reacted negatively by saying he should make his own decisions and understand he is a role model. What was not understood is that in his “in-group,” a Turkish migrant family, the religious in-group he belongs to is the reference and starting point for morality.  The key element is that in return for loyalty to the in-group, the in-group takes care of the group members.  Group convictions determine the preferences of individuals.  Individuals should be in harmony with the in-group’s thinking and interest.                                                     Of course, this should not be understood in an absolute way. All human beings are, in principle, gifted with empathy. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It is a crucial component of human relationships and is often seen as a key aspect of human morality and compassion. Based on a shared competence for empathy, one can say that universal human rights are rights that are inherent to all human beings and are not dependent on nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life, liberty, and security of person; the right to education and employment; and the right to a fair trial. But certainly, there can be tensions between collectivist and individualist perspectives on human rights. As discussed above, proponents of collectivism argue that the group’s needs should take precedence over the individual’s rights. Empathy can play a role in mediating these tensions by helping individuals to understand and feel the emotions and experiences of others

3. Masculinity versus Femininity

In masculine cultures, the dominant values are competition, achievement, and success. The dominant values in feminine cultures are consensus-seeking, caring for others and quality of life. In masculine cultures, sympathy is for the achiever. Status symbols are important to show success. Feminine cultures have a people orientation. Sympathy is for the underdog, “small is beautiful,” and status is less important.

Hofstede research on culture and Frans de Waal among non-human primates

Hofstede found that Gender scores are identical for three of the four confirmed basic value dimensions. The exception was Masculinity versus Femininity. He found that everywhere in the world, women scored somewhat lower than men on average. For a full understanding: American women score, on average lower than American men, but American women are much more masculine than Swedish men. The other way around: Swedish men score more Masculine than Swedish women. But Swedish men are much more culturally Feminine than American men. This has strong political consequences. The more feminine a culture is, the more sympathy goes to the underdogs and “have-nots.” So there is, in principle, support for redistributing tax money to help the unfortunates.

We’ll see later in this paper that this influences the way “Equity” is interpreted

Frans de Waal looked at the nature of the role of biological sex and the nature of gender in humans by looking at the behavior of non-human primates. He observed that in the other primates, too, you can speak of gender because they learn certain aspects of their sexualities from each other. For example, the young males watch the adult males and the young females watch the adult females and follow their example. There is also a cultural transmission of how you behave as a male and female. In that sense, gender is a concept that can also be applied to other species.

There is evidence that there is biased learning going on.  For example, research on orangutans in the forest showed that young females eat exactly the same foods as their Mothers. But young males vary. They sometimes eat foods that the mother never touches. That’s because their models are the adult males they see eating occasionally.

De Waal makes a few points:

“There is as much gender diversity in other primates as in humans. Homosexual behavior is very common in primates. I usually call bonobos “bisexual” because I don’t think they make a big distinction between whether they have sex with a male or female. All the gender diversity that we have in human society, transgender people and homosexual orientation, and so on, we can see in the other primates. The interesting part is that they have no trouble with it. I’ve never noticed that they exclude an individual because of this. The tolerance level is a lot higher than in most human societies. But the variation is very similar.” Sex is mostly binary: 99% of individuals are either male or female and there’s a small slice of individuals who are in between. Gender is, of course, a very different way of thinking.                                                                               There are sex differences that are universal, differences that we see in all human societies and all primate societies. It’s very hard to argue with some sort of biological background. For example, all young males and primates (including human boys) like to wrestle when they’re young; they do mock fighting, run around, and try to wrestle each other down. In the young primates, this is a very big bias; the males like to do that and the females don’t like to do that, necessarily. That’s why the females often play separately from the males. Another thing that’s universal in play behavior is that young females are more interested in infants and dolls in all primate societies and all human societies. If you give a doll to a group of chimps, it’s always a female who will pick it up and care for it. If a male picks it up, he may take it apart and look inside the doll to see what’s in there. But the females will put it on their belly and back, walk around with it and care for it. They do the same thing with the infants of other females. The interest of young females in infancy is also a universal human bias, primate bias, and it’s fairly logical because later in life, for most of their life, they will care for offspring.

           Biology or culture?

People want to choose between biology and culture. And that’s why you get these discussions with people who say gender is all cultural. There is nothing that is all cultural. That doesn’t exist. Because what is culture? Culture is us influencing each other and we are biological organisms, biological organisms affecting other biological organisms—automatically, biology is in there. There is no pure culture. It doesn’t exist. There is no pure biology either. That doesn’t exist. And that’s why, in biology, we don’t speak about instincts anymore in animals, because everything an animal does is influenced by how it grew up and what it learned in its lifetime, and so on. And so there is no pure biology either. So people want to choose between the two. And they have a false sense of security that they can do that, but you cannot do that. And so everything we do is influenced by two factors, the environment and our genes, and by the interaction between the two.

Masculinity and Femininity is a cultural construct. De Waal: “I usually divide it not by male and female but by masculine and feminine and everything in between. It’s an extremely variable concept. And as I said, it’s probably applicable to other primates, though maybe less well than in humans. But in humans, it is very important to distinguish those two. Gender has to do with how you express your sexuality, your sex role, and how much you follow or don’t follow the dictates of your culture.” But there is a flexibility that can also be seen in the other primates. De Waal givers following example, “chimpanzees and bonobo males, they don’t do anything with the young. The females do everything. The males may protect them on occasion, but that’s about all they do. But we know that if a mother loses her life in the forest, and suddenly there is an orphan, we know that sometimes males pick up these orphans and carry them. They adopt them and not just for a couple of days. High-ranking males, like an alpha male, may adopt a baby chimp and take care of it for five years. It’s not always expressed, but they have that tendency and that capacity.”

Subconscious learning and biases.  Hofstede talks about subconscious learning. De Waal explains it by biased learning: it is aroused more by familiar and similar individuals. In humans, that means individuals of your culture, language, color, and so on. We do empathy studies on all sorts of animals nowadays and they always have this social bias built in, which means it’s hard to generate empathy for individuals who are quite different from you, who are distant, who are a different ethnic group, or speak a different language. Then it becomes more difficult for you. But the fact that we have it is really important. And once you have empathy, the capacity for it, you can try to expand it mentally, to expand the rules for in our human moral systems. That’s a cognitive capacity that we have and that’s why we try to do things like that.

4. Weak versus Strong Uncertainty avoidance

Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these. In cultures of strong uncertainty avoidance, there is a need for rules, procedures, and formality to structure life. Decisions are taken after considering all available information. As a result, there is a tendency for deductive reasoning and a strong belief in experts. In weak uncertainty-avoidance cultures, people are motivated by making quick decisions based on limited information. As a result, they tend to prefer inductive reasoning, and there is a belief in “best practices” as formulated by practitioners. Experts are frequently seen as “Academic.”, which is not meant as a compliment.

Culture and Personality. The big five and shorelines

Since 1980 research has been published about the defining characteristics of personality. This created possibilities for exploring the relationship between culture and personality. The Five-Factor Model of personality is a universally valid taxonomy of traits, applicable regardless of society, ethnicity, gender, age, or education. Furthermore, the factors are stable over most of the adult lifespan; self-reports generally agree with observer ratings that the five factors and the more specific traits that define them are strongly heritable (McCrae & Costa, 2003).

The five factors create the four next shorelines in defining diversity:

5. Openness to experience: Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity, and a preference for novelty and variety a person has.

People who score high on this trait tend to be more liberal or left-leaning in their political views. They are more likely to support progressive policies, such as gay marriage, drug legalization, and environmental protection

6. Conscientiousness: (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). Tendency to be organized and dependable, show self–discipline, act dutifully, aim for achievement, and prefer planned rather than spontaneous behavior.

People who score high on this trait tend to be more conservative or right-leaning in their political views. They are more likely to value tradition, order, and stability and to be skeptical of change

7. Extraversion: (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved). Energy, positive emotions, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in the company of others, and talkativeness. Extroverted people tend to be more dominant in social settings than introverted people, who may act more shy and reserved in this setting. There is less clear evidence for a connection between extraversion and political preferences.                                                                                                                        Still, some studies have found that extraverts are more likely to be politically active and identify as liberals.
8. Agreeableness: (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached). Tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. People who score high on this trait tend to be more empathetic and compassionate and are more likely to support policies that help others, such as social welfare programs. They are also more likely to be politically liberal.

9. Neuroticism: (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). Tendency to be prone to psychological stress. The tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, and vulnerability. Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control and is sometimes referred to by its low pole, “emotional stability”. People who score high on this trait tend to be more anxious and insecure and are more likely to support authoritarian policies and be politically conservative.

It is important to see that the research by McCrea and others shows that personality traits are biologically-based dispositions that characterize members of the human species. This is a clear difference from the research on culture. Here the emphasis is on subconscious learning.).

How are the personality traits and culture interacting?

In an interview with Psychology Today (Poghosyan, 2017), Hofstede compares the interaction between the two with a jigsaw puzzle: “You could compare culture and personality to a jigsaw puzzle and its pieces. A jigsaw puzzle is made of different pieces, just as all personalities within a culture are different. But all together, they make up one puzzle and not another puzzle. Consider their personality if you want to know something about people (for example, their behavior). But if you want to know something about their society (for example, what is tolerated in the neighborhood), that has more to do with culture. Societies are made of individuals, and culture makes an imprint on the individuals who are born there. The first ten years of our lives are very important. That’s when you get your basic mental programming and acquire characteristics that you call culture.

 Looking at the Jigsaw puzzle, more shorelines can be defined

10. Orientation towards truth. Two cultural elements are important :

Type of Religion: a difference is found in comparing monotheistic religions with polytheistic religions. Going back to belief in one holy book and one Creator (an Unmovable mover) in Islam, Christianity and the Jewish religion, people of these religions believe in a truth that is one and individable. On the other hand, in Polytheistic belief systems and philosophies of life like Hinduism, Shintoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, people think that truth depends on time, context and situation.

The score on Uncertainty avoidance. Low UAI: Inductive thinking. Pragmatism: truth is when it works. High UAI:   Intellectualism. I think, so I exist. “Du choc des opinions jaillit la Verité” (From the clash of opinions, springs the truth), etc.

Some shorelines are  related to the jigsaw of culture and personality:

11. Conservative versus a liberal mindset. Next to value preferences as a result of culture this is a difference found in all cultures. The consequences are stronger in Masculine cultures because of the tendency to polarize

12. Economic/political thinking: Do you believe in the invisible hand of the market and see Governments as a threat? Or do you believe in “Central steering” by Governments? The scores on power distance and Uncertainty Avoidance are relevant here. In high Pewerdistance cultures, people see central steering as an existential phenomenon

13. Ethical orientation: “ethics of conviction” versus “ethics of responsibility” The German sociologist Max Weber introduced this famous distinction between two types of ethics: “Gesinnungsethik” (“ethics of conviction”) and “Verantwortungsethik” (“ethics of responsibility”)   “Ethics of conviction” means that people act according to principles and tend to disregard potential consequences. ”Ethics of responsibility” means that people work according to what they believe will be the likely consequences of those actions

14. Human rights versus traditional religious/cultural ideas: Can we allow individuals to decide about moral problems?   Or should we refer to religious and cultural traditions’ moral status?                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Example 1 Abortion rights: pro (individual) choice or pro-life (God’s will).                                                                                                                                            Example 2: Putin: the metaphysical fight against the decadent West.

15. Empathy only to people like us versus empathy for unfamiliar people. Despite all ideals, discrimination is still a frequent hidden or open poison in open societies. The question is why the discussion about discrimination and racism against black people is at the center of attention. In an interview, a simple answer is given by two anti-racism fighters: “Anti-black racism concerns the people who, based on their African roots or cultural background, are getting disadvantaged treatment. For a big part, this originates from the colonial past., the history of being enslaved. As a result, black people are confronted with ethnic profiling, with job discrimination” The enslavement history makes that blackness is still seen as negative and inferior, while white or Caucasian stands for intelligent and civilized. Despite all ideals, racism is still a stubborn challenge in open societies. Mostly it comes in three shapes: as a bias or stereotype. But also by applying statistics to make judgments about individuals.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The difference between bias and stereotype:                                                                                                                                                                                                   A bias is a personal preference, like, or dislike, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective. If you hire a Caucasian for a job with an equally qualified black applicant because you think blacks are not as smart as Caucasians, you are biased.                                                     A stereotype is a preconceived idea that attributes certain characteristics (in general) to all the members of a class or set. If you think that all Asians are smart or white men can’t dance, that is a stereotype. You find one characteristic true; you assume them all true. Example: In some cultures, like in Morocco, it is seen as impolite to look the boss in the eyes. Stereotype: “All Moroccans are unreliable; they don’t look you in the eye

Or this one:

17. The difference in emphasis on equality or diversity

The belief that the responsibility for poverty lies with the poor and deprived themselves and that poverty and inequality are moral rather than political issues has deep historical roots and continues to shape public policy today. Neo-liberalism with leaders like Thatcher and Ronald Reagan presented poverty as an individual failure rather than a social problem.

Even as societies and institutions have become more diverse, many have also become more unequal.

Debates about inequality have increasingly tended to look at equality in terms of “diversity”. The observation is “When you ask them for more equality, what they give you is more diversity,” “But a diversified elite is not made any the less elite by its diversity.” (Walter Benn Michaels, Adolph Reed, Jr) Reed and Michaels insist on the centrality of class in any discussion of social inequalities. They stress that the emphasis on diversity results from the fact that many groups faced discrimination and were excluded from positions of power and privilege. The drive for greater diversity is seen as a push for greater equality and an attempt to dismantle exclusion barriers. Equality and diversity are, however, different issues. While societies and institutions have become more diverse, many have also become more unequal.

Michaels and Reed are clear: Diversity policies do not necessarily challenge inequality but simply make it “fairer”. Most of those who advocate diversity policies do so because they abhor inequality. Yet, in the shift from “equality” to “diversity”, the most marginalized have often been forgotten. The focus shifted from addressing the needs of working-class people from minority communities to providing better opportunities for middle-class professionals. “The fact that some people of color are rich and powerful should not be regarded as a victory for all the people of color who aren’t”.

The next paper in this series will look at the seven possible combinations of the four Hofstede values and the seven different rules of the game for policymaking. Making the content and priorities of DEI programs in, for instance, the USA,  different from countries like The Netherlands, France, Nigeria and Japan.

Literature:

Demertt Allison, Hoff Karla, Walsh James,( 2015)Behavioural development economics: A new approach to policy interventions. World Bank Group (2015), World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behaviour. Washington, DC: World

Heinich Nathalie (1988). ·  E-book Ce que n’est pas l’identité·  9782072801235 ,·  september 2018 .·  Adobe ePub

Henrich Joseph, Heine Steven H. The Weirdest People in the World (2010)How representative are experimental findings from American university students? What do we really know about human psychology? The University of British. Columbia  Department of Psychology

Hofstede Geert: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd Edition. 596 pages. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001, hardcover, ISBN 0-8039-7323-3; 2003, paperback, ISBN 0-8039-7324-1.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the. Mind. Berkeley: McGraw-Hill

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 38(1), 52–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397103259443

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. ISBN 1-57230-827-

Malik Ken (2023) Focusing on diversity means we miss the big picture. It’s class that shapes our lives. The Observer January 29, 2023

Minkov, M. & Hofstede, G. (2014). Nations versus Religions: Which Has a Stronger Effect on Societal Values? Management Int Rev, 54, 801. doi:10.1007/s11575-014-0205-8

Pogosyan Marianna, Geert Hofstede: A Conversation About Culture. Beyond cultural dimensions. In Psychology Today, February 21, 2017

Søndergaard, M. (1994) Hofstede’s consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications. Organization Studies, 15, 447-456

Waal Frans de, Primates and Philosophers. How morality evolved. Princeton University Press, 2006  ISBN13:9780691124476

Watters Ethan (2013) We Aren’t the World February 25, 2013, In Pacific Standard

Wursten Huib (2019). The 7 Mental Images of National Culture Leading and managing in a globalized world ISBN-10: 1687633347 ISBN-13: 978-1687633347