I will describe the culture in the same terms I have used since the beginning of the course and will leave an open door for discussion if anyone would like to raise questions or challenge my definition. Culture is whatever exists at the intersection between collective identity and individual identity; it is whatever element is useful in helping individuals and groups define who belongs in which group by simultaneously addressing the questions “who am I?” and “who are we?”
Hofstede, Hall and others have offered useful frameworks for trying to address these questions in a structured way, but they are limited in scope and thus do not encompass the entire universe of cultural dimensions that people and groups resort to when defining where they belong. Hofstede’s five element list is certainly a way to help determine the nature of certain cultures but, as I have indicated in previous units, there are elements that exist outside of this framework that are immensely relevant when discussing particular collective identities. Latin American countries have cultures with a deep attachment to different types of music and dance, for example. In some cases, connecting with a particular culture can depend solely on whether you can dance their specific style of cumbia or bachata. Beyond theorizing about power dynamics or individualism, the abstract appreciation of forms of art or enjoyment can also define your cultural connections or distances, provided that those elements are relevant to the culture in question.
The reason the two-question framework is so compelling to me is that it simplifies the framework for the understanding of culture and distills it into the conjunction of two levels of identity. The open-ended questions allow for any element or dimension to be relevant. The only necessary conditions are that there is an individual and a collective connection to the particular element that is recognized at both levels.
Let us take Mexican as the identity in question. A person may feel a deep connection to Mexico and even consider it as part of her identity thereby answering the question “am I Mexican?” with a yes. That person would have to point to the group she deems collectively Mexican and seek corroboration by an affirmative response to the question “are we Mexican?” If she were to be sharing a meal with them but could not eat spicy food the group would not acknowledge her identity or may seek additional corroboration with other elements they deem relevant to the collective identity. A simple preference would reveal that despite the fact the person feels Mexican, she does not fully belong to the group because the link is not as strong with spicy food as Mexicans believe it should be. The same could apply to other cultures and their culinary tastes. The opposite can be true as well. I have a Hawaiian friend who lived in Japan for a few months – when she went out to restaurants with friends the waiters would always address her in Japanese first. However, it was her white friend who had lived in Japan for decades who spoke Japanese fluently while she was unable to string a sentence together. The waiters in this scenario assumed she was Japanese (“we are Japanese”) and when they sought individual corroboration, her response would counter their assumptions (“I am not Japanese”). This particular example indicates that there are collective assumptions about a person’s ethnic traits that define what it is to be Japanese. Other cultures may be evolving out of similar ethnic constructs – look at the France national soccer team and the impact they are having in terms of the definition of French cultural identity.
In the case of a manager, this matters because the collective identity of a team working for an organization will depend on whether the individual identities of the team members (subjective dimension) can intersect with a set of goals, principles, values (objective dimension). The most important consideration for a manager is to create a team culture around desirable goals, principles, values and any other element that is relevant to the team’s performance so that individual identities can find a compelling collective identity with which they can intersect. In the case of my current team, the single most important part of our collective identity is our technical proficiency. Even despite our somewhat divergent individual identities, we find a connection in terms of our desire and ability to perform an extremely difficult task under significant pressure every day. The fact that we pull it off (for the most part) is the glue that keeps our team together. Other teams may find convergence around certain affinities or challenges. The point is that it’s the manager’s responsibility to create the right framework and incentives and articulate the culture properly so that it permeates the individual identities of the team members or brings out the desirable elements of their identities in a productive way.
Failure to advance a compelling set of goals, principles and values around which to gravitate will inevitably leave the door open to anchoring a team’s collective identity to element’s of a dominant personality’s individual identity that are not relevant to the achievement of the group’s goals or worse that are directly opposed to those goals.
I honestly don’t see a lot of wiggle room on this one. There is only one way to show respect for others and it is to make sure their time at work is well-spent. I work in an essentially Latin American organization where meeting times are as strict as anything I have experienced anywhere else. The reason is simple: the organizational culture revolves around getting the job done. If 2,000 people from what are frivolously called polychronic cultures can manage to respect other people’s time, I think there is a case to be made that these constructs are not as relevant as the theorists would have us believe.
The essence of this position is that there is no way to consider all cultural approaches to time and offer proper deference to each one in particular so the strict default should that meetings begin and end according to schedule so there is no room for interpretation. If the meeting is scheduled at 4PM, the only way to be respectful to everyone invited is to stick to the schedule. Polychronic culture people soon adjust to a monochronic perspective when they realize that they are missing advancement opportunities and giving the wrong impression to their managers by showing up late to scheduled meetings.
Hofstede, Hall and others have offered useful frameworks for trying to address these questions in a structured way, but they are limited in scope and thus do not encompass the entire universe of cultural dimensions that people and groups resort to when defining where they belong. Hofstede’s five element list is certainly a way to help determine the nature of certain cultures but, as I have indicated in previous units, there are elements that exist outside of this framework that are immensely relevant when discussing particular collective identities. Latin American countries have cultures with a deep attachment to different types of music and dance, for example. In some cases, connecting with a particular culture can depend solely on whether you can dance their specific style of cumbia or bachata. Beyond theorizing about power dynamics or individualism, the abstract appreciation of forms of art or enjoyment can also define your cultural connections or distances, provided that those elements are relevant to the culture in question.
The reason the two-question framework is so compelling to me is that it simplifies the framework for the understanding of culture and distills it into the conjunction of two levels of identity. The open-ended questions allow for any element or dimension to be relevant. The only necessary conditions are that there is an individual and a collective connection to the particular element that is recognized at both levels.
Let us take Mexican as the identity in question. A person may feel a deep connection to Mexico and even consider it as part of her identity thereby answering the question “am I Mexican?” with a yes. That person would have to point to the group she deems collectively Mexican and seek corroboration by an affirmative response to the question “are we Mexican?” If she were to be sharing a meal with them but could not eat spicy food the group would not acknowledge her identity or may seek additional corroboration with other elements they deem relevant to the collective identity. A simple preference would reveal that despite the fact the person feels Mexican, she does not fully belong to the group because the link is not as strong with spicy food as Mexicans believe it should be. The same could apply to other cultures and their culinary tastes. The opposite can be true as well. I have a Hawaiian friend who lived in Japan for a few months – when she went out to restaurants with friends the waiters would always address her in Japanese first. However, it was her white friend who had lived in Japan for decades who spoke Japanese fluently while she was unable to string a sentence together. The waiters in this scenario assumed she was Japanese (“we are Japanese”) and when they sought individual corroboration, her response would counter their assumptions (“I am not Japanese”). This particular example indicates that there are collective assumptions about a person’s ethnic traits that define what it is to be Japanese. Other cultures may be evolving out of similar ethnic constructs – look at the France national soccer team and the impact they are having in terms of the definition of French cultural identity.
In the case of a manager, this matters because the collective identity of a team working for an organization will depend on whether the individual identities of the team members (subjective dimension) can intersect with a set of goals, principles, values (objective dimension). The most important consideration for a manager is to create a team culture around desirable goals, principles, values and any other element that is relevant to the team’s performance so that individual identities can find a compelling collective identity with which they can intersect. In the case of my current team, the single most important part of our collective identity is our technical proficiency. Even despite our somewhat divergent individual identities, we find a connection in terms of our desire and ability to perform an extremely difficult task under significant pressure every day. The fact that we pull it off (for the most part) is the glue that keeps our team together. Other teams may find convergence around certain affinities or challenges. The point is that it’s the manager’s responsibility to create the right framework and incentives and articulate the culture properly so that it permeates the individual identities of the team members or brings out the desirable elements of their identities in a productive way.
Failure to advance a compelling set of goals, principles and values around which to gravitate will inevitably leave the door open to anchoring a team’s collective identity to element’s of a dominant personality’s individual identity that are not relevant to the achievement of the group’s goals or worse that are directly opposed to those goals.
I honestly don’t see a lot of wiggle room on this one. There is only one way to show respect for others and it is to make sure their time at work is well-spent. I work in an essentially Latin American organization where meeting times are as strict as anything I have experienced anywhere else. The reason is simple: the organizational culture revolves around getting the job done. If 2,000 people from what are frivolously called polychronic cultures can manage to respect other people’s time, I think there is a case to be made that these constructs are not as relevant as the theorists would have us believe.
The essence of this position is that there is no way to consider all cultural approaches to time and offer proper deference to each one in particular so the strict default should that meetings begin and end according to schedule so there is no room for interpretation. If the meeting is scheduled at 4PM, the only way to be respectful to everyone invited is to stick to the schedule. Polychronic culture people soon adjust to a monochronic perspective when they realize that they are missing advancement opportunities and giving the wrong impression to their managers by showing up late to scheduled meetings.
Comments
Post a Comment