by Huib Wursten | Sep 18, 2024 | Uncategorized
Worldviews and vision/mission statements.
Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer
It is essential to:
- Tailor the message to cultural values such as individualism or collectivism, hierarchical respect, or egalitarianism.
- Leverage the Worldviews framework to ensure that the statement resonates with the underlying cultural norms of each society.
By doing so, organizations can align their strategic messages with the cultural expectations and values of the specific country, enhancing their relevance and effectiveness.
Some examples:
1. Contest
Vision/Mission Approach: Vision and mission statements in the US should highlight ambition, individual responsibility, and innovation. The focus should be on winning in a competitive marketplace.
- Example: Use clear, inspiring, and action-oriented language. “Leading the future of innovation and empowering individuals to achieve greatness.”
- Key Elements: Competition, individual achievement, and a forward-looking focus.
2. Solar System
- Vision/Mission Approach: The statement should convey respect for leadership, stability, and a structured approach to achieving societal goals. A top-down vision is often more effective.
- Example: “Guided by excellence and innovation, we lead with a commitment to societal progress.”
- Key Elements: Hierarchy, stability, leadership-driven innovation.
3. Well Oiled Machine
- Vision/Mission Approach: In Germany, the statement should emphasize professionalism, technical expertise, and the systematic achievement of goals.
- Example: “Delivering precision and reliability in every aspect of what we do.”
- Key Elements: Efficiency, technical expertise, reliability, and precision.
4. Network
- Vision/Mission Approach: Vision and mission statements should emphasize inclusivity, teamwork, and the importance of consensus. Top -Down tones are discouraged.
- Example: “Together, we create innovative solutions through collaboration and mutual respect.”
- Key Elements: Consensus-building, collaboration, equality, and respect.
5. Japan
- Vision/Mission Approach: The statement should respect authority while promoting unity, long-term commitment, and group harmony. It should reflect a deep sense of loyalty and a steady progression toward goals.
- Example: “Fostering innovation and harmony, together we create a future of lasting success.”
- Key Elements: Group loyalty, harmony, long-term vision, respect for authority.
6. Family
- Vision/Mission Approach: The mission statement should highlight the importance of the collective, family-like ties within the organization, and long-term growth. Respect for authority and tradition should be embedded.
- Example: “Building a future of shared prosperity through collective effort and long-term vision.”
- Key Elements: Collectivism, hierarchy, tradition, long-term thinking.
7. Pyramid
- Vision/Mission approach: Vision and mission statements should reflect the power of leadership and emphasize the stability that comes from strong, centralized control.
- Example: “Under the guidance of our management, we ensure stability and growth, driving excellence across all areas of our organization.”
- Key Elements: leadership, stability and order.
by Huib Wursten | Sep 18, 2024 | Uncategorized
Culture, science, objectivity, and truth.
Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando lanzer
In an alarming article in the New York Times of Sept. 11, 2024, Thomas.B.Edsall analyzed a loss of trust in science in the US, especially from the side of conservatives.
In the article, MAGA vs. Science Is No Contest, Mr. Edsall stated that this was because of the growth in the importance of “regulatory science”. This relatively new role thrust research around diseases and climate into the center of political debates; it is considered adversarial to corporate interests. Therefore, regulatory science directly connects to policy management and has become entangled in unavoidably ideological policy debates.”
Culture, science, facts and truth
In a perfect world, facts are objective truths that remain constant, independent of the observer. Objectivity implies that interpretations and conclusions are drawn without bias or influence from personal emotions, preferences, or social context. However, the cultural framework in which an individual operates heavily influences how they perceive and interpret facts.
Hofstede’s dimensions highlight how different cultures prioritize various values, which in turn can lead to differing perceptions of what constitutes an “objective fact.”
Power Distance and Authority of Facts
The Power Distance Index (PDI), one of Hofstede’s dimensions, measures the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. In cultures with a high PDI, hierarchical structures are strong, and authority figures, such as teachers, leaders, and government officials, are seen as gatekeepers of knowledge and facts. In these societies, facts are often viewed through the lens of authority. If an authoritative figure asserts something, it may be accepted as fact without much scrutiny.
This can compromise objectivity, as individuals in high-PDI cultures might be less likely to challenge or question established “truths,” even when evidence to the contrary exists. On the other hand, cultures with low PDI encourage questioning of authority and more equal distribution of knowledge, fostering a culture of critical thinking where facts are more likely to be scrutinized and verified independently.
Individualism vs. Collectivism and Subjectivity of Facts
The Individualism vs. Collectivism dimension reflects how individuals are integrated into groups. In individualistic cultures, the focus is on personal autonomy and individual interpretation of facts. People in such societies may prioritize their personal beliefs and experiences when interpreting information, leading to multiple competing versions of “truth” or facts. This emphasis on individual perspective may blur objectivity because facts are often contextualized based on personal understanding or interest.
Conversely, in collectivist cultures, where group harmony and consensus are valued, facts are often interpreted and accepted through a communal lens. The group’s belief or consensus may override conflicting evidence in these societies. While this can create a shared understanding of reality, it may also suppress dissenting views or new interpretations that challenge the status quo, affecting objectivity.
Uncertainty Avoidance and Resistance to New Facts
Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) measures how comfortable a culture is with uncertainty and ambiguity. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance have a low tolerance for ambiguity and tend to rely heavily on rules, regulations, and established facts. In such societies, there may be a strong resistance to new information that challenges established facts, as it introduces uncertainty into the social order.
This can lead to a rigid adherence to traditional knowledge and a reluctance to accept new, evidence-based facts that may disrupt the existing order. Objectivity in high-UAI cultures can be compromised because the discomfort with uncertainty encourages individuals to accept familiar “facts” rather than critically engage with new information. In contrast, cultures with low uncertainty avoidance are more open to new ideas and ambiguity, making them more likely to embrace new facts and change their understanding based on evidence, thus promoting objectivity.
The Masculinity vs. Femininity dimension describes the degree to which a society values masculine traits such as competitiveness, achievement, and success versus more feminine traits like cooperation, care for the weak, and quality of life. In masculine cultures, facts are often treated as tools in competitive debates. Pursuing facts may be driven by a desire to win an argument, gain prestige, or dominate an intellectual discourse. This can skew the objectivity of facts, as they may be selected or interpreted to support one’s competitive goals rather than to seek the truth.
On the other hand, in feminine cultures, where cooperation and consensus are valued, facts may be interpreted in ways that foster social harmony. While this can lead to a more empathetic approach to facts, it may also suppress uncomfortable truths that could disrupt the social fabric, thereby affecting the objectivity of how facts are presented and discussed.
The Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation dimension assesses how cultures prioritize the future versus the present. In long-term-oriented cultures, there is a focus on perseverance, adaptability, and practical problem-solving. This forward-thinking approach can encourage the objective analysis of facts, as they are more likely to evolve over time and require constant re-evaluation. Facts are not seen as static, and objectivity is maintained by continuously adapting to new information and long-term trends.
In short-term-oriented cultures, the focus is on tradition and immediate results. This can lead to an adherence to established facts and a resistance to change, as the emphasis is on maintaining the status quo. Objectivity may suffer in such cultures, as new facts or evolving information may be dismissed in favor of traditional or immediate interpretations.
Worldviews, policies and science.
Scientific data, political interests, and cultural perspectives are constantly intertwined in the ongoing global climate change and energy transition debate. The challenge of building consensus on climate policies is often not due to the absence of facts but because of the subjective ways these facts are perceived.
Huib Wursten’s framework of Worldviews offers an expanded understanding of cultural differences, building on Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. While Hofstede’s dimensions provided a structured framework for categorizing cultural traits, the concept of Worldviews explains how these dimensions shape how people in different cultures perceive the world. The Worldviews reflect deep-seated cultural archetypes and collective consciousness that influence societal values, behaviors, and beliefs. They offer insight into how individuals within a culture view themselves, others, and reality.
Worldviews and truth
The concept of truth is again affected by the worldviews.
In the Contest, truth is reflected by the dominant thinking system: pragmatism. William James, sometimes called the father of pragmatism, defined truth as Truth is when it works.
The policy implications are interesting, especially because of the interpretation of Canadian politician and scholar Michael Ignatieff. He stated: “What is true might not work. What works might not be true,”
This draws our attention to the complex relationship between truth and practicality. This assertion reflects the tension between idealism and pragmatism, particularly in fields such as politics, ethics, and science.
The implications of this idea are vast. It challenges how we understand truth, its role in guiding human action, and the consequences of prioritizing “what works” over “what is true.”
Ignatieff’s statement holds profound implications for governance, decision-making, and leadership. Politicians often face situations where an ideal solution—what might be considered “true” in terms of justice or morality—cannot be implemented because it is impractical, unpopular, or politically impossible. In such cases, what “works” in the short term might be adopted instead, even if it contradicts deeper truths or ethical principles..
This trade-off between truth and practicality raises questions about the integrity of governance: Are leaders justified in choosing practical solutions that deviate from truth or justice? Does focusing on “what works” lead to cynicism, manipulation, and the erosion of democratic principles? Ignatieff’s statement suggests that the compromises inherent in politics may distort the relationship between truth and action, leading to pragmatic decisions that may have long-term ethical consequences.
Network cultures value equality, cooperation, and consensus-building. In such cultures, truth is often framed around achieving a shared understanding of truth. However, this emphasis on consensus can lead to groupthink, where dissenting opinions or inconvenient facts are suppressed to maintain social harmony.
In Pyramid cultures, there is a strong reliance on authority figures and a rigid hierarchical structure. Truth is often tied to the authority of those in power, and facts may be accepted or dismissed based on who presents them rather than the evidence itself. In these cultures, questioning authority is discouraged, and objectivity may be compromised as facts are filtered through the perspectives of those in power.
As a result, truth is often shaped by authority rather than evidence, and individuals may accept facts without critically analyzing them. This can lead to a skewed perception of reality, where objectivity is sacrificed to preserve the established order.
In Solar System cultures, there is a combination of hierarchy and rule-based systems. While authority figures still play a significant role, there is also a strong emphasis on intellectualism. Truth in these cultures is often tied to adherence to established philosophies.
Machine cultures prioritize efficiency, structure, and rule-based decision-making. In these cultures, objectivity is often tied to measurable outcomes and efficiency. While this focus on rationality and rules can enhance objectivity in some areas, it can also lead to a mechanistic view of truth where only quantifiable facts are valued.
In Machine cultures, there may be a tendency to dismiss subjective or qualitative data as irrelevant, leading to a narrow view of objectivity that overlooks the complexity of human experience. Objectivity may become overly rigid, as the focus is on efficiency and quantifiable results rather than a holistic understanding of truth.
In Family cultures, loyalty to the in-group and paternalistic leadership dominate. Truth is often framed around maintaining group harmony and fulfilling social roles. Facts may be interpreted through the lens of familial or communal loyalty, and objectivity may be compromised when it conflicts with the group’s interests.
In such cultures, facts that challenge the group’s values or the authority of its leaders may be dismissed or downplayed. Objectivity is often secondary to maintaining social cohesion, and inconvenient truths may be suppressed to avoid disrupting the group’s harmony. This can lead to a selective interpretation of reality, where facts are filtered through the lens of loyalty and tradition.
In Japan, truth is often associated with collectivism and harmonious decision-making. In scientific research, objectivity is highly valued, with strong emphasis on empirical methods and neutrality. In the media and legal system, there may be a subtle balancing act between objectivity and maintaining social harmony. Public discourse tends to avoid overt conflict, so objectivity can sometimes include a focus on consensus and not just neutral facts.
The influence of Confucianism. In Japan and some of the Pyramid and Family countries, Confucianism adds a special element to the perception of truth. In these cultures, truth depends on time, context, and situation.
by Huib Wursten | Sep 18, 2024 | Uncategorized
Worldviews and “the Common Good”
Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando lanzer
Urgent developments like immigration, climate change and energy transition strongly affect our minds. It is becoming clear that we must tackle these urgent global problems by forming complex, adaptive coalitions.
However, the “WE” in this statement is actually a problem. To put it simply, “There is no we.“
There are different power players at work with different value systems and different “rules of the game.”
Therefore, the first important issue is understanding policymaking in the context of this diversity.
One element of this diversity is democracy, which determines how “the common good” is defined and by whom.
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 that “balances” diverse interests and finds peaceful solutions for tackling problems. It requires that people from different groups feel represented.
How decisions are made is culturally sensitive.
This point is often overlooked in global agreements and national policies. For instance, a policy that works in Sweden, with its egalitarian and low power distance culture, may not be effective in a hierarchical society like India or China. Countries characterized by low-context communication styles (where information is conveyed explicitly) may find it easier to discuss the facts of climate change openly. On the other hand, in high-context cultures (where much is communicated indirectly), such as Japan or China, the language of climate change policy needs to account for subtlety, sensitivity to “face” issues, and relational dynamics.
Culture and defining the common good
Politicians tend to profile themselves by claiming they aim for the common good.
The way the common good is decided upon and legitimized differs per culture. The Seven Worldviews is again a useful framework for explaining the differences.
A short overview:
Contest: the key reference of the common good in the Contest countries iswell-understood self-interest. Policy decisions are made by a simple majority after voting. Half plus one wins. The minority accepts that “the winner takes all.”
Network: The definition of common good is ” shared interest.” It is defined by consensus arrived at by the participation of all stakeholders.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.
Well-oiled Machine: Key reference: Principled, balanced interest as formulated by experts. Decision-making issystematic and procedural. Experts and expert information play an important role. The key is principled, balanced, and informed proposals by experts.
Solar System: The key reference in the Solar System is the common good formulated by people at the top of the leading party, including acceptability regarding the “narrow” rule of law, guaranteeing individual rights.
Family: The common good is formulated by the top of the dominant in-group.: System: rewarding loyalty, trust, social control. Frequently, Long-Term Orientation also influences policies.
Pyramid: Key reference: common good formulated by the top and acceptable for the dominant group.
Japan: Common interest is defined as a dynamic balance between the interests of all (in-group) stakeholders in society. Decision-making involves intensive top-down and bottom-up consultations(Ho-Ren-So) and carefully weighing proposals.
by Huib Wursten | Sep 7, 2024 | Uncategorized
An overview: Human Resources and
managing people in different kinds of
cultures.
By Fernando Lanzer and Huib Wursten
The Human Resources function in any organization is responsible for ensuring that there are qualified and motivated people capable of working towards achieving the organization’s purpose. In order to fulfill that responsibility, HR is also a quality control function, looking after the quality of the people in the institution in terms of capabilities and motivation. Yet, the HR function does not manage the people in the company; the line managers (and support function managers) are the ones responsible for managing the people reporting to them respectively, according to a defined structure.
In other words: the role of the Human Resources function is to help managers so that they can manage people (more) effectively.
This sounds simple and straightforward enough, but there are countless misconceptions and doubts about the role of HR, going across all cultures and influenced by the Seven Worldviews, among other things.
The role of HR should NOT be to usurp the role of line managers and take over the management of teams and people. And therein lies the challenge, both for HR professionals and for line managers: how to manage people effectively without handing over the people-management role to HR, since it is the line manager’s primary responsibility to manage people.
What often happens, in practice, in different cultures
Contest: The division of roles between Managers and HR in Contest companies is generally defined by their respective accountabilities: Managers are primarily accountable for overseeing their teams’ day-to-day operations, while HR focuses on broader organizational issues related to people management, policy, and compliance.
In Contest cultures, the attitude represented by line managers saying to HR, ” You take care of the people, while I take care of the business,” is quite widespread. It has also been propagated widely in popular culture through cinema and television, where situations abound where whenever staff members misbehave in any way, they are sent to HR to be disciplined.
It’s interesting to see that in these cultures, the line managers seem to delegate all disciplinary actions to the Human Resources Department. Apparently, Line managers in Contest cultures don’t want anything to do with managing people other than telling them what to do, and if people do not obey, they should talk to HR. In the eyes of non-contest cultures, this looks like a pupil is being sent to the principal’s office to be disciplined, or the stereotypical mother is saying to her child, “Talk to your father” whenever the child misbehaves rather than facing the situation.
We do know that there are a few organizations in which line managers actually manage their teams, but in Contest cultures they seem to be the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, this behavioris promoted internationally by films and TV shows created in America and the UK, which dominate the global market. In most fiction stories generated in Contest cultures, HR is seen managing the people, while line managers focus on other management tasks.
From a manager’s perspective, firing people who are not performing is something simple and easy to do. Some managers delegate the task of communicating severance to the HR function, while others prefer to do it themselves (sometimes because in Contest cultures it can feel very empowering to shout “you’re fired” at someone and see that person leave the workplace by the end of the day).
Contest culture labor markets are typically very dynamic: since these cultures are also short-term oriented, in combination with the emphasis on performance, confrontation, and a bias for action, the resulting outcome is that people change jobs more frequently. The firing and hiring processes are both rather quick, so change happens faster.
What will get you fired in Contest cultures? Frequent reasons are confrontations with your direct boss, typically involving poor performance or diverging interpretations about your degree of autonomy in carrying out your work. Many people leave their jobs for similar reasons, basically because it is reasonably easy to find another job in dynamic markets. Competition among employers is also fierce, so, often people leave their jobs to work for a competitor that pays more.
If you want to get a promotion or a salary increase, take initiative; making sure these will not put your boss in an embarrassing position but rather will make them shine as well. Keep your eyes on “the bottom line,” your final results and your targets; achieving targets will get you the recognition you aspire to.
In Well-oiled Machine (WOM) cultures emphasis is placed on detailed planning and strict discipline in following plans and structures. Managing people is not delegated to HR as much as it is in Contest cultures: managers manage their teams and HR are called upon eventually as “people specialists” when it comes to planning and designing policies and tools. Applying these in daily practice is regarded as a manager’s job.
Firing people in WOM cultures is not as easy as in Contest cultures; the underlying concept is that severance is a disturbance in the desired order of things, and this disturbance creates other problems to solve. Therefore, firing requires following a structured process including good reasons and complying with a series of pre-determined conditions. If managers do follow due process, they will be able to fire staff members who did not perform or behaved in ways regarded as unacceptable.
Staff members who repeatedly fail to comply with the rules or with clear instructions will get fired. Unlike Contest cultures, it will not typically happen quickly and the person who has been fired will not be required to leave the job immediately. The processes of firing and hiring are more structured and take more time to be carried out, so the labor market is less dynamic. Also, high Uncertainty Avoidance in WOM cultures plays a role: people have less appetite for risk, and this drives changes to happen with caution and more slowly.
If one wants to progress in their career, the keys to that involve accumulating expertise, specializing, aiming for excellence, developing strict self-discipline and complying with norms at all times. Do not expect dramatic recognition, though. Rather, recognition will take the form of prestige and some financial rewards, but not as blatant as one might typically see in Contest cultures. Excelling in WOM cultures is seen as a duty that deserves recognition but not necessarily big celebrations; after all, people are just doing what they should.
The role of HR is to ensure that the proper planning, work distribution, and structures are in place, so that people can easily fulfill their duties. Ethics is not usually a problem, since compliance is clearly outlined and followed. Fawlty planning is most often regarded as the root cause of people problems. When ethics issues are identified, they are typically treated with severe punishments and public shaming.
In Network cultures managers play more of a team coordinator role, since hierarchies are minimized as much as possible. HR restricts itself most often to administrative roles that do not have great influence on the way staff are managed by line managers. There is little, if any, delegation of people issues to be managed by HR. Rather, line managers manage their staff much as they would coordinate their own colleagues in group study teams at school. Performance issues may often be addressed as a team issue by the whole team, rather than through a one-on-one conversation between manager and staff member.
There is such an emphasis on autonomy that everyone enjoys pretending hierarchy does not (or barely) exist. Bosses strive to be treated as part of the team, though they expect that staff members will acknowledge their position as “primus inter pares”, the first among peers.
HR plays the role of “place holder” in charge of coordinating discussions about people management. They act mostly as secretaries of people management committees that discuss extensively how to plan, design and apply policies in a way that ensures all stakeholders are satisfied with the outcomes. When specific issues arise, they are handled by the line manager/coordinator with the team.
In hiring procedures HR acts as a process coordinator, in which many managers interview several candidates and then seek consensus about whom to hire. This is typical of Network cultures: decisions are made by individuals in groups (with minimal hierarchy) seeking consensus.
Since performance is not such a core issue, it is quite difficult to manage underperformers and virtually impossible to fire them. People often mention that this is due to a very protective labor legislation, but the truth is that the underlying values of Network cultures play more of a role than the legal framework. Legislation, of course, mirrors a culture’s values in every culture.
With regards to severance, the main issue is simply that Network cultures are basically very inclusive societies that value caring and quality of life over performance. This translates into practice as a reluctance to exclude anyone from the organization, unless there is a critical incident that clearly justifies dismissal, such as stealing or blatantly harassing someone.
Critical thinking is valued in Network cultures; so, asking smart questions will get you a lot of respect and (non-financial) recognition. Voicing your opinions assertively will also help you progress in your career, as long as it is done with respect and composure.
In Pyramid cultures it’s a quite different story, largely because of high Power Distance, Collectivism, and high Uncertainty Avoidance. The combination of these value-dimensions results in a very different culture environment for managing people at work and for the role of the Human Resources function in organizations.
For starters, setting goals, targets and expectations is a very hierarchical, top-down exercise. And yet, performance is not the main concern in such cultures, even in those with a higher score in in the MAS dimension; it is relationships and loyalty that determine how successful someone typically is. In Pyramid cultures loyalty to your boss is the most critical factor to success at work. Therefore, job descriptions and targets are not as important as the relationships one maintains with their bosses.
Hiring is often a very personal process, in the sense that a team leader might hire someone they know, with little or no involvement from HR. If candidates are presented that do not have a pre-existing relationship with the team leader, hiring decisions are based on whether there is an initial positive impression based on personal chemistry.
Firing can happen suddenly, like in Contest cultures, and usually happens when mutual trust is broken, in very subjective terms. It doesn’t happen as quickly as in Contest cultures, in terms of leaving the office by sunset, but typically people are asked to leave in a few days. Labor legislation can affect the process, and it can be quite different from one Pyramid culture to another, but it usually boils down to how much money someone is entitled to when they are fired.
What will get you fired, of course, is doing anything that is perceived as being disloyal to your direct boss or to the organization as a whole. This can be very subjective. Although labor legislation can be protective in terms of requiring significant indemnities to be paid out to staff upon dismissal (making severance expensive), there is usually the legal concept of “loss of trust by the employer” which can be used as a reason for dismissal. In most Pyramid cultures, as long as the employer pays out, anybody can be dismissed without an argument.
Success awaits those who develop strong relationships with bosses and peers, and who show loyalty to the organization. If there is also good performance, all the better.
In Solar System cultures the characteristic tension between high Power Distance (PDI) and high Individualism (IDV), translated as respect for hierarchy while valuing autonomy and employee rights, makes scenarios a bit more complex also at work and in regard to the role of the HR function in people management.
Managing people is typically shared between line managers and the HR function. Since there is a lot of power games and jockeying for positions in organizations, HR is typically happy to take on board certain people management responsibilities, in order to affirm its own power within the musical chairs games.
Firing staff members is not so simple and easy. Solar System cultures typically have protective labor legislation in place that demand a very well-documented, bureaucratic, procedure to allow for dismissal. In practice, dismissals are rare and easily become litigious when they happen, making them a long, drawn-out process typically involving labor unions as well.
Underperformers can frequently get away with doing the bare minimum so as to avoid severance, and since achievement is not so strongly valued in Solar System cultures, what might eventually trigger dismissal is somewhat serious unethical behavior. Sexual or moral harassment is seldom raised as grounds for dismissal, since in these cultures there is far more tolerance for behaviors that would be regarded as unacceptable in Contest cultures, by comparison.
In order to succeed, one needs to learn how to “play the system”: this includes knowing when to challenge and when to concede. Mastering the conceptual knowledge that underpins “the system” will be very useful to win arguments in specific situations.
In Family cultures the workplace atmosphere and the role of HR tend to be quite similar to what is observed in Pyramid cultures. Hierarchy (high PDI) and Collectivism (low IDV) translate into very top-down management styles, and relationship-based work cultures. The main differences relate to the lower scores on Uncertainty Avoidance; this results in a less structured work environment and more flexibility in general.
Hirings often happen through a network of relationships: someone in the organization recommends a relative or friend as a job candidate. Some companies rely almost exclusively on this process to hire new members of staff.
HR plays a role of “trusted advisor” to Top Management, and in these cultures, this is a more personalized relationship between the specific people involved. Compared to Social Pyramid cultures, everything is a bit less formal and structured. The Head of HR might have no specific technical knowledge but holds the position because of a long-lasting trust relationship with one of the Top Managers.
Line managers typically enjoy the “more pleasant” aspects of dealing with their staff members: telling them what to do, sending them to training courses in nice locations, promoting them and awarding bonuses. They tend to delegate to HR the less pleasant tasks: firing people, disciplining them, communicating that their bonus will be lower this year, communicating that they did not get the promotion they wanted. Staff members may grumble, but they rarely challenge “bad news”, because high PDI drives great respect for hierarchy.
It is relatively easy to fire people and that usually happens whenever trust is broken. Depending on how emotional the triggering situation is, people might be asked to leave the premises immediately, or in a few days. Performance is not typically the issue, but loyalty is.
In order to be successful, one must invest in long-term relationships with people at the top and demonstrate loyalty and dedication to the institution.
Last, but not least, Japan has its own workplace culture characteristics that reflect its national culture values.
Workplaces are highly structured environments dominated by intense dedication, high Uncertainty Avoidance (translated as rituals and strict procedures for everything) and very high MAS (translated as strong valuation of achievement over quality of life and caring).
HR plays the role of being a cog in the wheel. It enforces the policies and procedures, but seldom needs to intervene, since most workers at all levels observe procedures quite strictly.
Hiring observes specific protocols involving HR and line managers; decisions are made by seeking consensus at a certain level and asking for confirmation by a next higher level manager. HR acts as a secretary to ensure due process is followed.
Quality improvement has become a trademark issue in Japanese business culture. These processes have flourished in Japan precisely because its national culture treasures self-discipline, performance and dedication to continuous improvement. Other countries have tried to copy these quality control processes, but they have not been able to be as successful as Japan, simply because other national cultures do not have the same combination of cultural values that is unique to Japanese culture: strong valuation of performance, Collectivism facilitating teamwork, high Uncertainty Avoidance driving rigorous discipline, respect for hierarchy (high IDV) and a willingness to make short-term sacrifices to obtain long-term constant improvements (driven by high LTO scores).
In spite of the very demanding work environment, severance does not happen easily or very often. There is an emphasis on long-term employment and stability on the job is one of its consequences.
What will get you fired is not necessarily underperformance, but rather shortcomings in loyalty to the firm and, of course, a significant incident in ethics. There is, in all these issues, a somewhat significant tolerance in terms of actual severance; staff members may be severely punished and even publicly shamed, but dismissal and exclusion from the staff group is seen as a last resort.
In order to succeed, showing loyalty is a pre-requisite; and also showing dedication and compliance, working long hours and making personal sacrifices to benefit the institution. Perseverance and resilience are key competencies for success.
by Huib Wursten | Sep 7, 2024 | Uncategorized
Cultural values and relativism
Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer
An intriguing quote is attributed to the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski: “All cultures are equal. But the culture that is formulating that is of a higher level.”
It is a provocative statement that challenges the notion of cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism suggests that all cultures should be seen as equal and valid in their own right. Critics like Kolakowski argue, however, against the idea that all cultural values are equally valid. They express skepticism, arguing that such a view could lead to moral nihilism.
Cultural Relativism and Its Limits
Cultural relativism emerged as a response to ethnocentrism, the tendency to view one’s own culture as superior to others. Anthropologists like Franz Boas argued that cultures should be understood and respected within their own contexts without imposing external judgments. This perspective promotes tolerance and understanding, encouraging societies to appreciate cultural diversity without placing one culture above another.
However, Kołakowski’s quote challenges the notion that cultural relativism can be applied universally without any hierarchy. When a culture asserts that “all cultures are equal,” it is engaging in a self-reflective act that requires a certain level of intellectual and ethical development. This act of self-awareness and the ability to transcend one’s own cultural biases suggest that the culture making this claim possesses a degree of sophistication or maturity. In other words, the very ability to formulate the concept of cultural equality might indicate a higher level of cultural development.
At first glance, the quote seems paradoxical. How can all cultures be equal if one culture is deemed “higher” because it has the capacity to assert this equality? The answer lies in understanding the implications of such a statement. Kołakowski is not merely contradicting himself; he highlights a fundamental irony in the discourse on cultural equality.
The Hierarchy of Values
Kołakowski’s quote implies that cultures are not simply collections of practices and beliefs that exist on an equal plane. Different cultures possess an underlying hierarchy of values; some cultures may prioritize values such as freedom, equality, and human rights more than others.
In this view, cultures that embrace pluralism and the equality of cultures have reached a higher level of self-awareness and moral maturity. This stance doesn’t diminish other cultures but rather acknowledges that some cultural frameworks allow for a broader, more inclusive understanding of human values.
Power Dynamics in Cultural Discourse
The second part of Kołakowski’s quote addresses the power dynamics inherent in cultural discourse. The culture with the privilege to declare all cultures equal often has the intellectual and material resources to engage in such a debate. This power dynamic can be seen as a form of cultural dominance, where one culture, by virtue of its advancements or influence, can dictate the terms of equality for all cultures.
Western liberal democracies often champion the idea of equality. However, these societies are also the ones with the power to disseminate their values globally through education, media, and political influence. This creates a paradox where the culture that promotes equality is also in a position of power, potentially imposing its values on others under the guise of promoting equality.
Hofstede and equality
With Geert Hofstede’s profound research findings, we can “unpackage” the values that define culture.
Before Hofstede, culture was approached as a single compact object that could not be analyzed meaningfully. Hofstede proposed breaking it down, or “unpackaging it,” into components.
We call them “value-dimensions of culture”.
Two of the four confirmed value dimensions are involved in defining equality.
The first one is Power Distance. This is about “the acceptance of unequal distribution of power in a society”. Inequality is seen as an existential fact of life.
The second one, Individualism versus Collectivism, is about rights. In Collectivist cultures, we find particularism. There are different rights for insiders and outsiders. In individualistic cultures, thinking is universalistic. The rights are valid for everybody.
Western countries share only one of the Hofstede dimensions: Individualism. As a consequence, they consider human rights a universalistic value system. This is sometimes uncomfortable in non-Western countries and is rejected as “new colonialism”.
About 200 countries signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means that countries can be held accountable for trespassing. However, more than 80% of the world’s population lives in countries with collectivistic cultures that score high on Power Distance. This could mean that these cultures might feel sympathy for the general message but will be hesitant to enforce it if people of their own in-group are involved.
Another important issue is that the Universal Declaration is promoted as a new ideology.
Our blog on Utopian ideas described the danger. Idealism tends to turn against those who do not follow it. Many ideologies result in imprisonment or worse for adversaries.
Slowly, awareness is developing that a much broader interpretation of human rights is needed to avoid “identity wars” and polarization. The latest messages about the problems with DEI programs at American universities are warning signs.
Another alarming sign is that human rights are called “Eurocentric,” mainly with reference to the ideas of the European Enlightenment. Adversaries combine that with European Colonialism and propose to reject all ideas from the colonialists. This is now and then taking the shape of rejection of critical thinking and cause-and-effect thinking.
The authors of this blog adhere to the UDHR’s statements but see an urgent need for another approach, one that prioritizes solving the accumulation of global crises.
Climate change, energy transition, poverty: we cannot wait to solve the problems. In spite of our value diversity, “We are in it together.”
The framework of the Seven Worldviews can help bridge differences. Indeed, “if you want to build bridges, you need to know where the shorelines are.”
Hierarchy and criteria
Globalization and Geert Hofstede’s work have enabled us to examine these issues more deeply and examine the implications of value dimensions, including how Kolakowski’s basic assumptions can be interpreted. For this, we also need to “take off our glasses” and remove our own cultural filters to look impartially at the notion of “cultural superiority.”
Considering the damage that so-called “Western Civilization” has done to our planet, the wisdom of ancient indigenous civilizations, more synchronous with Nature, has surfaced. Could this promote a rethinking of Western values?
Hofstede has described values as “a preference of one state of affairs over another” without addressing a “hierarchy of moral maturity”; should everyone accept such a hierarchy, or would this become a regression to Aristotelian concepts of Ethics, Reason, and Emotions being placed conceptually in descending order? Since Sigmund Freud uncovered the fact that unconscious impulses drive people’s behaviors, does that topple Aristotle’s moral temple or shake its foundations?
When discussing “moral hierarchy,” what values should be placed at the top, based on what criteria? Again, the question is: why would we need a hierarchy of cultures? Would this be a kind of geopolitical power game scarcely disguised as a philosophical discussion?
by Huib Wursten | Sep 2, 2024 | Uncategorized
Culture, basic emotions and self-control
Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer
Norbert Elias, in his book The Civilizing Process, described the process of civilization in terms of the development of self-control. The higher the level of civilization, the higher the level of restraint, stability, and flexibility.
However, it is not always easy to control your emotions. Some people say that they are, in reality, a thin layer protecting the world from harmful basic emotions.
Revenge movies, for instance, are often satisfying because they tap into deep-seated emotions and universal themes that resonate with many people.
Revenge movies typically revolve around the idea of justice and catharsis. When the protagonist seeks revenge, it satisfies the audience’s desire for justice, especially in cases where traditional justice systems fail. The act of revenge serves as a cathartic release, allowing viewers to experience vicariously the triumph over injustice. The strong emotions at play—anger, grief, betrayal—are universally relatable. The audience, through the film’s characters, feel that they are allowed to express justified rage without the restraints of civilization that would make them feel guilty for such aggressive expressions of violence.
Human Rights as a Framework for Managing Emotions
Human rights are universal principles that aim to protect all individuals’ dignity, freedom, and equality. Basic emotions, such as fear, anger, love, and empathy, are intrinsic to human nature and play a crucial role in how people perceive and react to the world around them. Human rights provide a framework for managing emotions constructively.
For instance, anger might arise from perceived injustice, but human rights principles encourage addressing such feelings through lawful and peaceful means rather than violence.
Emotions like fear or hatred can also lead to prejudice and discrimination, which human rights frameworks seek to combat. Balancing these emotions with protecting others’ rights is a key challenge in diverse societies.
This implies that while recognizing that destructive emotions are natural, acting on them without considering their impact on others and due process before conviction and punishment can lead to undue harm toward innocent people. Human rights provide the necessary boundaries within which emotions can be expressed, ensuring that the dignity and rights of all individuals are respected. At the same time, recognizing the role of emotions in motivating human rights advocacy is crucial for fostering a compassionate and just society.
Civilization and impulse control
It’s important to keep primary emotions like anger and the desire for revenge under control for several reasons:
Impulse control is often referred to as a cornerstone of civilization because it is essential for the functioning of organized societies. The ability to regulate impulses—to delay immediate gratification, resist harmful urges, and consider the long-term consequences of actions—enables individuals to live together harmoniously, follow social norms, and contribute to collective well-being. This behavior regulation allows for the development of complex social structures, institutions, and cultural practices that define civilization.
The Role of Impulse Control in Social Order
In a civilized society, individuals are expected to adhere to certain rules and norms that promote order and stability. These rules often require people to suppress immediate desires or aggressive impulses in favor of behaviors that align with societal expectations. For example, instead of resorting to violence when angered, individuals in a civilized society are expected to resolve conflicts through dialogue or legal means. This control of impulses helps prevent chaos and ensures that social interactions remain peaceful and productive.
Delaying Gratification and Long-Term Planning
Civilization is built on delaying gratification and engaging in long-term planning. This means individuals must often forgo immediate pleasures for future benefits, such as working hard in the present to secure a stable future or investing resources in education and infrastructure that will benefit society in the long run. Impulse control allows people to think beyond their immediate needs and desires, fostering the development of systems like education, law, and governance that require sustained effort and foresight.
3. Moral and Ethical Development
Impulse control is also closely tied to developing moral and ethical standards within a society. Civilized behavior often involves making choices that are beneficial to oneself and considerate of others. This requires empathy, self-discipline, and the ability to put the community’s needs above personal desires. For instance, following laws, practicing fairness, and showing respect for others’ rights are all behaviors that stem from controlling selfish impulses in favor of ethical conduct.
Cultural and Intellectual Advancement
The arts, sciences, and other cultural achievements of civilization often require high impulse control. Creativity and intellectual pursuits involve dedication, patience, and the ability to focus on complex tasks over long periods. Impulse control enables individuals to resist distractions and persist in endeavors contributing to cultural and technological progress. The development of language, literature, and philosophical thought, all of which are hallmarks of civilization, are made possible by the ability to control impulses and engage in deep, reflective thinking.
Uneasiness and anger as a result of the need for self-control
In the news and the media, we see that in many countries, people seem to be becoming progressively more angry.
According to Sigmund Freud, the need for control over basic emotions creates an insoluble tension between an individual and the community and culture he is part of. In 1930 in his book “Das Unbehagen in der Kultur” Freud applies some of the principles of his psychoanalysis. He focuses on what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. He asserts that the primary friction stems from the individual’s quest for instinctive freedom battling against civilization’s contrary demand for conformity and repression of instincts. Freud states that when any pleasurable situation is prolonged, it creates a feeling of mild contentment. However, many of humankind’s primitive instincts (for example, the desire to kill or unlimited sexual gratification) are clearly harmful to the well-being of the community. As a result, civilization has created laws that prohibit killing, rape, and adultery and severe punishments are levied if these rules are broken. In this way, our opportunities for happiness are restricted by the law. This process, argues Freud, is an inherent quality of civilization that gives rise to perpetual feelings of discontent among its citizens.
Freud’s theory is based on the notion that humans have certain characteristic instincts that are immutable. Most notably, sexual libido and the predisposition to violent aggression toward authority figures or sexual competitors who obstruct the individual’s path to gratification. This is inherent to what we call culture. The basic human instincts of a sexual and violent nature are being kept at bay by what is called “civilization” This civilization creates a habitable social environment with its rules and norms. This, in turn, provides protection for the humans in that civilization, but in so doing, it also creates new psychological problems such as neuroses, inhibition, and repression.
The most important “drive” in human beings is aimed at maximizing pleasure and happiness. Freud calls this the ‘pleasure principle’. We want to have it all! However, at the same time, we are acutely aware that we are limited in our desires and actions because, in reality, we might do ourselves and others harm. Freud calls this the ‘reality principle’. Not everything we want is possible.
In the human psyche, another drive can be found in the tendency for destruction. This partly results from the frustration of being restrained but also as an independent motivation, as sometimes violence “just feels good”. Pain and acts of destruction are seen to be giving satisfaction. We all know the example of a child destroying a sandcastle after building it at the beach for hours. In an article on unrest, the author, Bas Heijne, refers to the main character in a book by Dostoyevsky, who says, “Sometimes it just feels good to destroy something.”
The problem of being “street smart.”
Some people reject the human rights approach and promote being “street-smart”. This means adopting a different, unwritten code of ethics that allows for “thinking on your feet”.
This is then seen as “realistic” in contrast to theoretical “academic approaches”. Street-smart behavior frequently implies behaving according to basic emotions like anger and the desire for revenge.
Here are a few examples of such opinions and the need to look at the wider implications for morality:
- “The only thing they understand is violence.”
This is often invalid for several reasons, especially when applied to groups or individuals:
It is an oversimplification of Human Behavior: People and groups have complex motivations that cannot be reduced to a single factor like violence. Many factors, such as cultural values, emotions, social conditions, economic circumstances, and personal experiences, influence human behavior.
Dehumanization: This statement can dehumanize the targeted group or individual by implying they lack the capacity for reason, dialogue, or empathy, which are fundamental human traits.
Bias and Prejudice: It often stems from or reinforces biases, stereotyping, and prejudice, leading to further division and conflict.
It is a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: If one assumes that violence is the only language understood, one may take premature actions that escalate conflict rather than resolve it through peaceful means.
It is Ignoring Context: The statement ignores the context in which violence occurs, such as oppression, injustice, or desperation, where violence may be a reaction rather than an innate understanding.
In summary, the statement “the only thing they understand is violence” is invalid because it oversimplifies complex human behavior, dehumanizes individuals or groups, can lead to a cycle of escalating violence, lacks empirical support, and raises significant ethical concerns. Effective communication, understanding, and nonviolent approaches are often more productive in resolving conflicts and achieving lasting peace.
- “We have to stop this once and for all.”
In the context of a conflict, this is problematic for several reasons:
Unrealistic Expectations: The phrase implies that the conflict can be resolved permanently, which may not be realistic. Many conflicts have deep-rooted causes that aren’t easily or quickly resolved. Suggesting a “once and for all” solution might oversimplify the situation’s complexity and set expectations that can’t be met.
Overconfidence: The phrase implies that a decisive, possibly forceful, action can resolve the issue, ignoring the need for negotiation, compromise, and long-term strategies.
Ignoring Underlying Issues: Stating “once and for all” may focus on ending the symptoms of the conflict (such as violence) without addressing the underlying issues (like inequality, historical grievances, or political differences). Without addressing these root causes, the conflict is likely to resurface in the future.
Potential for Escalation: The phrase can suggest a final, all-encompassing action, which could escalate tensions. Parties in a conflict might perceive this as a threat or an ultimatum, leading to further entrenchment or retaliation rather than moving toward resolution.
