What is culture?

9/11/2011

Management literature is filled with guidance and case studies on how to change organisational culture. Some view culture as an overarching descriptor of ‘how we do things round here’. Others view it as a shared underlying belief system that influences behaviour and practice.

I think there’s some truth in both these viewpoints. They point to the shared nature of culture, that is, it includes the individual yet extends beyond towards a group: its values and ways of acting. It’s this shared dimension that differentiates culture from individual thinking or behaving.

Yet it still feels like something is missing. Culture is a felt experience. Observing culture, studying it, analysing it, isn’t the same as directly experiencing it. It’s something about what it feels like, what it means personally, existentially to be part of something bigger than myself.

And yet it isn’t just something I feel. It’s about a mood, a shared experience, something we within the culture feel, together. It’s an intangible phenomenon, a group dynamic, that feels tangible. It guides us, moves us, motivates us in subconscious ways that feel natural and mysterious.

This is one of the reasons why culture change programmes are so problematic. If culture was simply about thinking or behaviour, it would be possible to devise methods that motivate and enable change in these areas. In some situations, that may well be all that is needed.

In transformational change, however, we must pay attention to deep rooted existential issues, psychodynamic and social psychological phenomena, cultural climate and experience. It’s about working-with, certainly not doing-to, and that demands humility, wisdom and patience.

67 Comments

Philip Khan-Panni

30/4/2012 02:34:29 pm

In simple terms, culture means "the way we do things around here". It includes local practices, traditions, attitudes and values, determining behaviour and attitudes to difference.

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 04:02:19 pm

Thanks for the comments, Philip. I wonder if the 'determining' dynamic is more mutually iterative, by which I mean values influence behaviour/experience and behaviour/experience influence values? There's also something about social influence - the way a group historically and currently interprets and makes sense of its experience so that its beliefs and practices become 'cultural'. With best wishes. Nick

Laura Parendo

30/4/2012 02:35:27 pm

I would piggyback your comment and ask if its never been verbalized, how does an organization define its culture in written verbage? Are there often words to describe culture and can organizational leaders change it, define it, and encourage it? If so how?

Nick Wright

30/4/2012 02:42:02 pm

Hi Laura. I think you raise an interesting point: how an organisation defines its culture. Definition implies clarity and yet, depending on how we think of and experience it, culture can be and feel quite difficult to pin down. This may be because culture may represent a dynamic as much as an action, or patterns of action or behaviour. What do you think? With best wishes. Nick

David M

1/5/2012 05:53:03 am

Is the "culture" of an organisation, analagous to a microbial culture in that it is "that which is infectious"?
An almost ecological perspective on culture change may a) indicate why it is so complex, and b) throw up potential avenues to ehnance the effectiveness of plans and processes for culture change.

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 03:49:11 pm

Thanks David. That's a novel angle and analogy that I hadn't considered before. Did you have any examples in mind of how conceiving of culture in that way could influence how we might approach culture change? With best wishes. Nick

Mary

3/6/2012 06:52:41 pm

David, No... please...

Culture is the opposite of the Nature.
"Cultural" means "Human". "Natural" means "No-Human"
Definition of "Culture" can be close to "Civilization".
"Culture" means "meaning" and "values".

Organizational culture is the philosophy of the organization.
This is very important for quality of work and motivation of individual members.

Stephen Moles

1/5/2012 09:38:24 am

To me, this posting points up the need for knowledge management programs to investigate and address implicit learning. Just as with our birth cultures, most of cultural learning takes place implicitely through socialization. And, whether intentionally or not , every organization does socialize staff to some extent. Then, the question becomes "does that socialization surface and suport the best in the individual and the organization or not?"

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 03:56:41 pm

Hi Stephen. Thanks for the note. I'm interested in your comment about implicit learning and it sparked a thought about how it relates to intuition. I comment more on this in an exploratory article on Gestalt coaching, if it's of interest: http://www.nick-wright.com/just-do-it.html. I really like your final question, particularly as it touches on deeper questions. After all, it seems to me that what we believe is best for individual and organisation and what constitutes meaningful support are also in some sense products of underlying cultural beliefs and values. With best wishes. Nick

Geoff Roberts

1/5/2012 10:36:16 am

Describing culture is surely a rich field for theoreticians - Johnson & Scholes' Cultural Web, Hofstede's work, Handy's 'Gods of Management', Spiral Dynamics etc.

Ultimately though, culture manifests itself in words and behaviour. We can change the physical environment and it will have an effect (move from individual offices to open plan and see what I mean!), yet ultimately the culture changes through persistently using different language and different behaviours - these being the external manifestations of inner values/beliefs/identity and vision.

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 10:39:26 am

Thanks for the response, Geoff. Interesting comment on the relationship between language, behaviour and inner values, beliefs, identity and vision. Reminds me of social constructionism which implies that language both shapes and manifests inner beliefs etc. With best wishes. Nick

Ken Hudson

1/5/2012 10:41:36 am

Hi Nick, I agree with you, Culture is so much more than the cold facts of thinking and doing things in the work environment. Those things at one level are relatively easy to put in place. However, the experience, feeling and fun are also critical to the acceptance of how we do things around here. The pyscological aspect is difficult to measure and understand. It can often be observed when organisations are having to pull themselves round during difficult times. It is a qualitative aspect that comes out through good questioning. What is it like to work here? What makes it so enjoyable? How did that feeling come about? What is it that makes people wish to stay with this organisation? (answers to go beyond pay and conditions). I know that is not a full answer, it is a start though.

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 10:45:22 am

Thanks Ken. Your comments certainly resonate for me. There's something in the psychological, qualitative, phenomenological aspects of culture that feel deeply mysterious yet profoundly important and influencing to me. Great questions by the way. With best wishes. Nick

Joy

3/5/2012 05:27:52 am

This comment to me has a semblance to Kirkpatirck's four levels of evaluating training where I believe level 1 impacts on level 2 and so on. The easiest level to conduct being level 1. With culture, level1 would be putting in place 'the way we do things and think' in a work environment. It only gets tougher to deal with as you move up from level to level.

Nick Wright

3/5/2012 03:17:24 pm

Hi Joy and thanks for the comment. Interesting parallel with Kirkpatrick. The further we move from levels 1-4, the more difficult it is to measure because of the complex range of variables involved. The parallel with evaluating culture and culture change is an intriguing one that I hadn't considered before. With best wishes. Nick

Robert S. Libberton

1/5/2012 10:47:05 am

Culture is what happens with the customer when no management is looking.

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 10:48:59 am

Thanks Robert. That comment made me smile, but I can see truth in it too. I have a friend and colleague who says something similar. 'It's the echo one hears when the original source is no longer present.' With best wishes. Nick

william mccray

1/5/2012 01:27:39 pm

There is a Darwinian aspect to culture that propagates a system of beliefs and concomitant behaviors that organization members adopt based on their perceptions of what is necessary to 'survive' within the organization.

'Elders' then synthesize these observations and perceptions into 'stories' which are passed down across time to all new members who assume the veracity of the stories based on a common assumption that 'experience is the best teacher'.

If the person sharing this story has been in the organization for over 5 years and is in a position that management entrusts to mentoring new employees the listener has little reason to doubt that the story is true.

Changing even one assumption puts the entire value system of that individual in question which is unsettling (if I was wrong about that what else have I been wrong about?) and a major reason why a true and sustained culture change is so very difficult.

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 04:12:02 pm

Hi William. Thanks for the note. I think the Darwinian adaptive survival dynamic is an interesting idea. Hadn't thought about it in that way before. I guess I'm wondering if 'perception' is a conscious cognitive process and whether cultural dynamics sometimes operate at a deeper subsconscious level? I believe your comment about how changing or challenging underlying assumptions can feel unsettling is the root of what we commonly call culture shock. I agree with your comment about how difficult it can be to achieve true and sustained culture change, especially as there are all kinds of social-psychological factors that explain why groups are often conservative in their beliefs and behaviour and, thereby, resistant to change. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments. With best wishes. Nick

Ken Wallis

1/5/2012 04:39:02 pm

An age-old question Nick, but a good one. I always like looking for the 'symbols' of a culture, the things that stand for what people perceive the culture to be - brands, language used, links that are made and how the culture is reflected in systems and processes.
It's these symbols that reinforce, define and extend an organisation's culture, so that members of the cultural group know what it means and how they can live it.
Ken

Nick Wright

1/5/2012 04:39:37 pm

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ken. Yes, I too find the symbolic manifestations of culture fascinating and illuminating. I guess the challenge is sometimes how to understand, or help others understand, what those symbols mean and represent at shared subconscious levels for that group. I agree with your comment on reinforcement. Cultures as group phenomena often seem to exhibit powerful self-reinforcing dynamics which is one reason why culture change can be difficult to develop and sustain in practice, especially if imposed from outside the cultural group. With best wishes. Nick

Mark Leonard link

1/5/2012 10:43:30 pm

Perhaps culture is a social mind. So, like the mind it may have various qualities and functions, but it won't be in them or any location or subsystem of the person or organisational being.

So how do we change culture? We change it by training people's minds. What is it in a mind that you can develop? It's things like intention, attention, awareness. The mind can't be contained or controlled; tinkering with the subsystems by trying to change behaviours tends to have a much lower order of impact, and there are often unintended consequences.

I'm interesting in seeing how mindfulness training may impact on the collective mind, by training the minds of individuals.

Nick Wright

2/5/2012 03:41:21 am

Hi Mark. Thanks for the thoughtful comments - very interesting. I like the idea of culture as 'social mind', in that I believe culture may be best understood at its deepest levels as something like a social psychological/group psychodynamic phenomenon. That's what makes pinning down culture, or trying to shift or change it so difficult because culture isn't really a tangible 'thing' to be grasped hold of in the first place. There are different views on what can be done to influence cultural change, ranging from interventions that seek to raise awareness (and, thereby, resulting outlook and behaviour) through to those that seek to change behaviour (and, thereby, resulting experience and outlook). Could you say more about how you could envisage mindfulness training influencing the collective mind? Sounds intriguing. With best wishes. Nick

Martine Bolton

2/5/2012 03:30:03 am

I would say that culture is the collective soup of the quality of energy held in the hearts and minds of employees at all levels, but especially at exec level.

Nick Wright

2/5/2012 03:30:45 am

Hi Martine. 'Collective soup of quality of energy held in hearts and minds' is a lovely phrase! ;) Nick

Martine Bolton

2/5/2012 03:48:23 am

Aw, thanks Nick - it's probably a bit wordier than it needs to be, if I'm honest! IMHO, culture is just the by-product of the hearts and minds in an organisation - especially of those with the most power and influence. I therefore believe that whilst it's important to have a compelling vision and inspiring values and behaviours, the only way to truly change culture is to influence those hearts and minds in the positive - which I believe can be done - with the 'right' kind of L&D intervention, of course!

Nick Wright

2/5/2012 03:48:57 am

Hi Martine. Sounds like we're thinking along similar lines. I'm interested in the relationship between 'those with most power and influence' and culture, especially in postmodern/democratic/social media-orientated cultures where power is potentially more dispersed than in traditional hierarchical cultures. I would be interested to hear more about what you had in mind when you refer to the 'right' kind of L&D intervention. That's the million dollar question, right? ;) With best wishes. Nick

Martine Bolton

2/5/2012 04:02:21 am

Great question - not so easy to answer, I think! But I'll have a go... I'd say it's about reaching the parts that traditional 'training' methods don't always reach - influencing a person's beliefs, assumptions, judgements, possibly values, and so on. Would probably involve unlearning and relearning rather than the more-stright-forward learning! Can't really be 'trained' as such, but can be learned through activities, reflection, stories, metaphor etc - if the person is open and willing of course :-)

Nick Wright

2/5/2012 04:07:44 am

Hi Martine. I really like the notion of unlearning. Allow me to pose a few more questions that your posting brought to mind. Firstly, can you give examples of how you do the interventions your listed? They sound great and I'm interested to hear from you (or others) what they could look like in practice. Secondly, I'm curious about the relationship between individual change/development and group change/development. For example, if we consider culture as essentially a group phenomenon ("discuss"!), what may need to shift in the group to enable an individual to shift, or vice versa? Nick

Nick Wright

2/5/2012 04:11:08 am

@Martine. P.S. you may find this short article interesting..? http://www.nick-wright.com/managing-our-not-knowing.html. Let me know what you think? :) With best wishes. Nick

Martine Bolton

2/5/2012 05:52:21 am

Yikes - more 'big' questions! Not sure I have that long!! Can't do justice to all of your points on this forum Nick, but would say that my previous reponse re the 'right' L&D intervention was largely theoretical (ie I haven't developed that particular intervention yet!). If you'd be interested in co-developing something, please get in touch. It would be a great piece of work to get involved in. Re individual/group change, my instinct is that, as a group is effectively just a collection of individuals, we can only really work with individuals, at some stage achieving the 'tipping point' / 100th monkey effect (not to liken people to monkeys, of course... although I do know a few cheeky monkeys, ha ha!). The VitalSmarts 'Influencer' programme suggests identifying the opinion leaders in an organisation (often, but not always, the leaders), and that when these people are on board, others will naturally follow. Hope this is helpful, Martine. PS. Nice article - very thoughtful/insightful. I'm not sure how many organisations achieve 'dialogue' in its purest sense - where it feels safe enough for people to 'go there' and explore the stuff that can make us feel uncomfortable. As you point out - a major handicap to real learning.

Nick Wright

2/5/2012 05:59:18 am

Hi Martine. Your 'yikes' and 'monkeys' comments made me laugh. :) I'm really interested in the way you connect leadership & culture (cf Edgar Schein) and think about leaders as influencers, not necessarily leaders in a formal hierarchical sense. That definitely resonates with my own cultural experiences in organisations. Interesting thoughts on connections with tipping points too. It taps into social psychological research into group behaviours. You may be interested in the 'culture' section of this article: http://www.nick-wright.com/a-journey-towards-od.html? Let's keep in touch. Would be interesting to share further thoughts, ideas and experiences with you. With best wishes. Nick

Hiroo Chothia

3/5/2012 12:58:17 am

Nick
Encouraged to read that you are questioning the definition of 'culture' prior to addressing the issue of changing it.

Simply put - culture is the tone that defines the organisation, both internally and externally. The 'social glue' of the organisation. That said, there is an inherent danger in assuming that there is simply a homogeneous culture as most organisations will have systems of sub-cultures.

Schein provides a useful formal definition:
“Culture is the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organization, that operate unconsciously and define in a basic ‘taken for granted’ fashion an organization's view of its self and its environment.”

Nick Wright

3/5/2012 01:22:58 am

Thanks for such a thoughtful response, Hiroo.

It strikes me that when we talk in organsations about 'culture change', it all depends on what we are hoping to change. If we're simply talking about changing some of our practices, then specific practical modifications (e.g. to how we do things) may be sufficient. If we are talking about deeper sustainable change, a deeper understanding of group psychodynamics, social psychology, systems psychology etc. will be important.

I like what you said about the internal and external dimensions. In an organisation I work with currently, we link culture with brand so that brand is the external expression of our culture and culture is the internal expression of our brand. Culture and brand are an expression of our core identity, beliefs, values and purpose. That's the aspiration. The change aspiration is how to be more authentic in that sense more of the time.

I agree with your comment about risks of assuming homogeneous culture when, in practice, organisations (always) have subcultures; even cultures within cultures. I believe that cultures are dynamically complex too. That is, culture at its deepest levels isn't a fixed, clearly definable 'thing' that can be measured, managed or manipulated. Perhaps it's something more akin to a social dynamic with varying degrees of fluidity.

Thanks for reminding me of Schein's definition. He's one of my favourite culture gurus! With best wishes. Nick

Penny Whittaker link

7/5/2012 03:10:51 am

It is nice to see an attempt to define a term that is bandied around as “understood” by everyone but possibly in a different way by all. Organisational culture for me is about the way people behave due to influences, rules and expectations placed upon them since the day they joined an organisation. I think that the individual, religious and national and cultural backgrounds are less important by comparison.
When management talk about culture it seems as though they are talking about something created by the people they employ. In reality it is created by the people they choose to employ and the rules, regulations and expectations they impose upon them.
So to create a “culture” a long term strong leadership and with a strong organisation identity is required.
If you want people to be open and creative, don’t impose too many rules on them or blame them when it doesn’t quite work out. Think of it as raising children. The examples and rules you set will influence their lives forever.
When you decide to make organisational change you are deciding that previous management rules and regulations did not work and you want to change the learned behaviour of all. For a small organisation this may be quick but for larger more complex organisation it is like changing the direction of a large ship changing course will take time but has to be led from the helm.

Nick Wright

7/5/2012 04:15:00 am

Hi Penny. Thanks for your comments and for raising so many good points for discussion. I will offer some responses.

I can see your point about the relationship between how people behave and what influences, rules and expectations have been placed on them by the organisation. At one level, this could be considered as a 'compliance' view of culture, that is, people observably following preset, required patterns.

The question of religious, national and cultural backgrounds is an interesting one to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, different nations and cultures have different models of organisation and, therefore, what kind of cultural practices are expected and rewarded. Secondly, the cultural (including religious) values that people hold in the organisation will influence how they hear, interpret and respond to organisational cultural requirements.

I really liked the question you raised implicitly about who creates culture. In my experience, leaders and managers typically have greater formal authority to determine and prescribe expected cultural behaviours. In different national and organisational cultural environments, however, cultural influences are more dispersed, e.g. influenced by thought leaders, respected role models etc. as much as those holding traditional hierarchical authority.

I really liked your comment on creativity. It drives towards underlying questions of identity, values and purpose such as, 'what are we here for?', 'what is most important to us?', 'what do we want to achieve?', 'what difference do we want to make in the world?'. Co-creating the right culture that taps into and fulfils such things and the approaches that will achieve them feels very important to me.

I agree with your final comments about complex organisations and the ship analogy. A simple shift in procedures or ways of working can be relatively straightforward. Challenging and reorientating underlying cultural beliefs and values can be considerably more complex and take far longer. This links to my final point in the blog - understanding and working with what matters most to people can prove to be the key.

With best wishes. Nick

Brady Reed

9/5/2012 12:51:12 pm

I liken culture to the synapse between strategy and execution. It's the default organizational norm of human behavior in the interstitial space that either enables execution or causes it to fail.

Robert S. Libberton

9/5/2012 12:52:07 pm

Wow Brady!, Dr. Shein defines it as the vertical relationship of espoused values, artifacts and underlying assumptions. Dr. Hatch adds in symbols and reorganizes the relationship to a circular interdependence that has all assets of culture interrelating to each other. I see culture through my academic understanding and would add in ethnic prejudices to the mix. As a sailor, I have seen many different cultures and the geographical nuances of areas have a huge effect on organizational cultures.

In the way I understand culture its roots are in management (owners) actions, seen in organizational artifacts or symbols and inherently followed by employees desiring to work in that particular field. Do you see this differently? If I understood “interstitial” right I think you are speaking to the underlying assumptions that people want to be in the field there working in? (Salesman in sales, etc…). What I want to understand is where culture originates from Brady’s viewpoint. Thanks for sharing.

Nick Wright

9/5/2012 01:11:43 pm

Hi Robert. I like Schein's definition, which also emphases patterns and shared meaning. The shared dimension is what distinguishes culture from an individual-specific outlook, preferences, behaviour etc. I liked your comment about the influence of ethnicity and geography on culture in difference part of the world, to which I would add things like topography, climate, language, history, social systems, wealth, politics etc. I loved your final question re. where culture originates. I find social constructionism compelling. If interested, have a glance at Kenneth Gergen's 'Invitation to Social Construction' or Vivien Burr's 'Social Constructionism'. With best wishes. Nick

Nick Wright

9/5/2012 12:59:47 pm

Hi Brady. Interstitial is a new word for me...could you say more about what interstitial space is? With best wishes. Nick

Brady Reed

9/5/2012 04:09:57 pm

Forgive the biology reference, I'm an Army medical service corps officer! An Interstitial space is a "space between". It's the space between tissues, cells, or neurons (also called synaptic cleft for my biology critics) that transmit information or vital nutrients to between a sender to receiver. It's like the grease that keeps an organization running smoothly. I like the imagery because strategy fails when execution doesn't occur due to the failure of human behavior - all the activity of relationships and norms that turns strategy into action items. For example, when one party simply can't get along with another who's combined execution is essential to making the strategy work. Another example may be when the leader is toxic and thus honest feedback on progress doesn't get communicated. When this behavior occurs, execution breaks down. I agree with all who include factors of geography, environment, etc - they are factors in the culture. But what culture IS, at least to me, is the sum of all the behavioral norms within an organization - that which lies in that interstitial space that makes the organization run well or poorly.

Nick Wright

9/5/2012 04:10:39 pm

Hi Brady and thanks for the explanation. I must find a way to weave 'interstitial' into my next blog. ;) I like your emphasis on the human aspects of organisation, the focus on relationships and behaviours which so often make or break a strategy's or organisation's success. I guess a definitive answer to the the question of what culture is is partly semantic. In other words, it all depends on what you mean by 'culture' (which can, of course, lead into some weird circular conversations). You may be interested to have a glance at this article I wrote a few years ago: http://www.nick-wright.com/paradigm-4c-dynamic-model.html. It aims to articulate a range of facrors influencing success in organisations, including culture alongside complexity, capability and climate (meaning organisational climate, rather than environmental climate!). Would be interested to hear your thoughts. With best wishes. Nick

John Nicholson

10/5/2012 07:13:23 am

Very complex and facinating subject. My experience with corporate culture and change has led me to try to simplify things as much as possible, not to dumb down, but to provide a greater opportunity for clarity of understanding and execution of tangible outcomes.

As a business/organisation does not exist without people somewhere in the chain, we must remain mindful of the systemic factors that drive behaviours in those people.

For me culture is about collective behaviour, what people say and do on a consistent basis.

I fully agree with Hiroo's definition and reference to Schein.

Kind regards,
John

Nick Wright

10/5/2012 01:46:06 pm

Thanks for your helpful comments, John. I liked your comment that 'a business/organisation does not exist without people somewhere in the chain.' I once wrote a dissertation (a social constructionist outlook on organisations) which opened with the words, 'organisations do not exist - but people do'. I would be interested to hear more about 'the systemic factors that drive behaviours'. Could you give some examples? I agree with your emphasis on culture as a collective phenomenon. I can see how it manifests in behaviour and am interested, too, in what underlying social psychological factors both influence behaviour and are influenced by it. With best wishes. Nick

John Nicholson

11/5/2012 06:57:08 am

Some examples of sytemic factors that drive behaviours would include:
-Clarity in the vision, mission and true values of the business. Not the marketing values!
-Organisational design
-Communication strategy ( internal )
-Leadership
-Performance mgt
-Total reward
-L&D
-Recruitment
-Employer brand/reputation
-Process orientation

With the above in mind, and applying a systems thinking approach, the clever thing to do is work on incremental continuous improvement in all areas as opposed to priority 1, 2, 3 etc , dealing with the presenting needs one at a time. This creates a push down pop up situation as the focus is moved around and can be costly and lacks sustainability.

It is proven that attending to the above issues in a joined up way, drive comittment and alignment to the business strategy and in turn those businesses with inspired employee engagement out perfom the market in all of the key corporate metrics.

"seek to improve not 1 thing by 1000%, but 1000 things by 1%"
Jan Carlzon

Ranald Hendriks

12/5/2012 02:32:03 pm

Culture? Desired or actual?

Actual culture is the behavioural patterning of the organisation. It isn't how things are done around here (because that changes all the time). It's more what it looks like around here through observation, the actual likely make up... and that can be changed by simply adding one new person to the mix, or taking one out. Some people are like prime colours though, so they can change the colour of an organisation (the culture) more than others..., a bit like mixing paint, a little bit more of this or that will change the tone, and I suppose that's what Jan Carlzon observed by saying even 1% would make a difference? because it can...

I think it is harder for an organisation to create a desired culture they want (or a collective group wants) when people think organisations don't exist, that people do. I'm not trying to offend here or be argumentative, I'm just sharing from experience.

That sort of organisation, where the focus is predominantly people focused, is likely to have quite a heartless culture... one which feels lost in turnover or at the grip of an indiviual (or sometimes mob collective') heart(s). - But not the organisations heart.....It will be one where the strongest prime colours' agenda will change the tone...

I think organisations are what should exist and people should either should align to them or get out of them. Otherwise, it's a culture mixed with self serving personal (and sometimes collective agenda's... gangs or mobs) agenda's where people are confused through thinking they are either their jobs or the organisation. Not someone who for fair reward is meant to be doing something selflessly aligned to an organistion (when on the clock)...

For an organisation to exist, it needs a recipe for it's desired culture, and carefully selected ingredients so it tastes nice for all its stakeholders. But the desired and actual cultures are very rarely the same thing, and that's what makes it all so colourful I reckon.

Nick Wright

12/5/2012 02:52:19 pm

Hi Ranald. Thanks for your comments. I really liked your comment that, 'some people are like prime colours, so they can change the colour of an organisation (the culture) more than others..., a bit like mixing paint, a little bit more of this or that will change the tone'.

It's certainly true that some people or groups appear to exert more influence over organisational culture than others. It's not necessarily those in leadership roles or in ways leaders would hope for. I guess therein lies a challenge for formal culture change programmes.

With best wishes. Nick

Ranald Hendriks

13/5/2012 04:00:27 pm

Hi Nick, you're welcome. Thanks for the discussion :)

Formal change won't work as effectively if people or groups exert more influence than the organisation's desired state, which is neither a person or group, but a separate entity.

Systemic structural support within the organisation can help align and re-align people, otherwise cultural patterns, individual agenda or re-active stances toward change (who did what to whom) will overcome or at worse hamper efforts.

I guess the challenge therefore lies in people learning that the internal governance and memory systems within an organisation (the foundations for transactional activities of managers), which is neither a person or group, but the heart of life blood of the organisation, is the ambulance at the top of the cliff in achieving a desired cultural state.

Unfortunately, this is usually controlled by a person or group, and innovative and/or, new approaches, which will require an individual and collective willingness to explore ones own behaviour, is frought with difficulty, as people fear being exposed as a fraud, often unnecessarily, but that's what change can do to people.

Luckily, we're all in the same boat there and so long as we don't question someones worthiness, we discover the challenge becomes an adventure and fixed viewpoints dissolve into co-operative efforts. I agree this is not a very common culture, but a universally desirable one at least.... and that's what makes it always possible.

Maria Koromila

13/5/2012 04:01:31 pm

The 'how we do things around here' is indeed a popular definition. There is a school of thought that says, this definition is lacking because it does not highlight enough assumptions implicit in behaviour. At a simple level, we learn early on (as early as our school days) what is expected of us. If I do x (behaviour), the the consequent effect (y) will follow. I expect it to happen (expectation). So in an organisation if I ask what could be regarded as an awkward question (behaviour), disapproval quickly follows (results). I know this happens, so i don't ask the awkward question. Over a long period of time an attitude emerges and that's the time when we kind of start taking things for granted. At this level I'm kind of aware that asking the awkward question is not the 'done' thing. Over many years and many second order loops (behaviour-result-attitude) culture emerges. At the level it would not occur to me to ask the awkward question - I just don't.
It is because of those complex layers that it is not easy to describe culture in concise language and even more difficult to change. Symbols, language etc give very good insights (agree with Ken), as do discussions that start pointing towards some of the underlying assumptions - for example: 'who are the heroes in this company?', 'what you would one do to get on, progress?' or the flip side, what could get one fired?' etc
Culture is a favourite topic of mine. Thank you for the question!

Nick Wright

13/5/2012 04:19:24 pm

Hi Maria and thank you for such helpful comments. It sounds like we are thinking along similar lines.

I believe it's very important to acknowledge the underlying shared assumptions dimension because culture is more than just observable behaviours. If it wasn't, culture change would be as simple as swapping one set of behaviours for a different set.

I also agree with your view that (a) cultural assumptions are a result of social conditioning and (b) are often subconscious, even to those who hold them.

In the organisation I work for, we sometimes invite new starters to produce a light-hearted 'rough guide' to what they've noticed about our culture before they become inculturated themselves. It's a fun and revealing way of holding a fresh mirror up to ourselves.

I like the questions you posed at the end. These can be good prompts to surface unspoken and often subconscious cultural assumptions. Symbols can be revealing too, although the tricky bit sometimes is knowing how to interpret them.

With best wishes. Nick

Vincent Gordon link

14/5/2012 05:37:14 pm

I think that culture becomes exciting when it is regarded as an active process, not the passive sort that seems to either accept "how things are done around here", or reinforce the anecdotes/stories that are told etc.

This would mean that there is focused attention in using (read that as "shaping") culture to drive renewal or support strategy.The implication here is that that an organization culture is not just historical perspectives and footnotes, but includes qualitative elements that need to be renewed/refreshed to be relevant.

Relevant here would be "what is required" in order to drive strategy - the evolution of culture at a pace to support and indeed drive the strategy. If culture is not aligned with strategy, then my experience is that strategy fails everytime.

In my opinion, it means that the job of (hierachical) leadership is to use culture as part of its toolkit, which is different from what is often done - changing the playbook to accomodate or "recognize our culture." This is no more readilty apparent than in organizational renewal or business turnaround opportunities. If elements of "culture" created the problem in the first place, then those elements can hardly be ignored or not specifically addressed.

Nick Wright

17/5/2012 01:47:35 pm

Hi Vincent. Thanks for the comments. I like your emphasis on culture as a dynamic rather than static phenomenon and the relationship in organisations between culture and strategy. I guess the underlying challenge lies in the question, how to change culture bearing in mind the beliefs, values and dynamics inherent in the current prevailing culture. With best wishes. Nick

Philip A Foster MA

17/5/2012 01:39:17 pm

"Anthropologists defined culture as the socially transmitted knowledge and practices of a group of people, and it is all-important in human life. We learn our cultures as we grow up, from our families, playmates, and teachers. And, almost immediately, we begin to pass on what we have learned to others" (Cornish, 2004, p 13).

Cornish, Edward (2004). Futuring. The Exploration of the Future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society.

Nick Wright

17/5/2012 01:42:12 pm

Hi Philip and thanks for the helpful quotation. I agree with Cornish's anthropological view. With best wishes. Nick

Ravi Rao

17/5/2012 01:39:57 pm

For me, culture is a set of "emotional rules" that help define how people connect to each other. I know we hate the word emotion in the business world, but emotions are what define the human experience (and therefore business too).

I think there are nine healthy emotions that bring people together, and we call the collections and combinations of these culture.

Nick Wright

17/5/2012 01:52:36 pm

Hi Ravi and thanks for the note. I like the way you highlight the significance of emotion in human experience. I believe emotion is a signficiant dimension of human experience (rather than the defining dimension), alongside other dimensions. This is an important aspect of cultural experience that I was trying to express in the blog. I would be interested to hear more about what you see as the nine healthy emotions. With best wishes. Nick

F Daji

21/5/2012 02:19:44 pm

Amongh the many definitions we had to learn while studing sociology, I am eternally grateful to a simple one - which is " A Way of Life" . This relatively logical phrase has never let me down during any Cross-Cultural Training and surprisingly in any other training session.

Once this awareness is created within " Oh, so it's just a way of life- from eating to drinking to travelling to communicating to of course other aspects from traffic to perhaps government structures, traditions, history etc, etc" , it becomes easier and less stressfull to accept the fact "Ah - of course every society, company would naturally have a "way of life" . " Of course the way of life may be different, but at least all of us " have a way of life" . "Eureka! - All cultures have this one common thread. "

Nick Wright

21/5/2012 02:23:43 pm

Hi F. Thanks for the comments. I think 'a way of life' is a useful way of thinking about culture (particularly how it manifests itself in practice) especially as it feels quite holistic to me. Perhaps something like 'a shared way of life' would capture the shared nature of cultural values, behaviour and experience? With best wishes. Nick

Charles Fuller III

28/5/2012 01:16:15 pm

"A way of life" is my definition of religion, you guys stole it.
8^0

Nick Wright

28/5/2012 01:19:19 pm

Hi Charles. Did you remember to patent it? ;) Interesting link with religion. 'A way of life' is certainly closer to a biblical view of religion than passive assent to a list of abstract doctrines. With best wishes. Nick

Bjorn Martinoff

28/5/2012 01:20:58 pm

"Culture is a set of behaviors, actions, practices, habits and values that are largely based on the prevailing circumstances and are largely aimed at helping the survival of the individual and the collective." - Bjorn Martinoff
www.fortune100coach.com
www.f1c-international.com

Nick Wright

28/5/2012 01:27:27 pm

Hi Bjorn. Thanks for the note. Interesting link between culture and prevailing circumstances. I guess it can work both ways: circumstances influence culture; culture influences circumstances. I'm interested in your link between culture and survival (or safety) of the individual or collective too. It points to important functional aspects of culture that may not be apparent by simply observing the culture itself. With best wishes. Nick

Charles Fuller III

28/5/2012 01:31:26 pm

Durkhime, Boaz & T. Parsons (sorry for the spelling, it's been 4 decades) may have the most to offer in regards to our OD definition (I was an anthropologist before doing OD) of culture. However, it's like asking Nick's question - who am I?
As to 'survive', look to the literature on "group think' i.e. what the Nixon era cabinet did enacting the Watergate events. Hope this assists...

Nick Wright

28/5/2012 01:37:17 pm

Hi Charles.

I think you raise an interesting point about 'group think'. It seems to be an inherent risk of any culture as a shared and self-reinforcing way of seeing things, especially if the culture becomes resistant to any outside influences.

This links with Bjorn's comment about cultures providing a sense of psychological (and sometimes physical, political, economic etc) security. The group dynamic that provides a sense of security for those within (by differentiating between those who are 'in' and those who are 'out') can be the same dynamic that leads to its downfall.

With best wishes. Nick

Roland Sullivan

2/6/2012 12:20:04 pm

Great conversation. For me the best teacher of organization change in the world is Peter block. He says the way that one changes culture is by changing the conversation.

And I say the fastest and the deepest way to change the culture is to do it in large group interactive events.

The conversation needs to be created by a maximum mixture of representatives of the entire system.

Now the shocker. I spend with an organization almost 20 days before we ready to have the conversation that will make a difference in the culture.

Such as what it takes to prepare for conversations in groups of 300 to 1000 people.

The conversation has to be right. the conversation has to lead to committed systemwide actions as well as local or individual actions.

Here is the document that shares my thinking... more in depth

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QkEWM0YaaatN1CCm3jV3hspHZHqyx-uBTBkEBCAcsZI/edit

Am proposing that one of the countries of Asia use my process to help transform their youth through the use of sports and other healthy lifestyle changes.

Should know by the time I get to Singapore for the Asia OD net conference if my idea will fly.

Kavita Sekhar

2/6/2012 12:21:34 pm

Hi Nick, I think one aspect of culture is the known meanings which is passed on from one person to the other and the second aspect is the new observation that is tested by each person. On the whole i feel culture is like a magic charm- i.e each person carries a spirit (either positive or negative) towards another person's activity that originates from the inside and radiates to the outside.

Manas Das

8/12/2012 08:36:30 am

Very interesting topic and mindblowing comments. Only thing that I would like to add is my perception about it.
I feel there are 2 things which are getting scanned in the above discussions, which are Culture and Organizational culture. Since organization culture is a subset of overall culture, let us first analy the concept of culture in three major phases: -
1. The initial stage: - Probably religion is the first thing which tried to summarise the human practices of a partiular geographical region to define culture, which was influenced by instincts and experiences initially. Later on of course it was influenced by interest of power groups. Till now in under any religion when a child is born it was taken through various religious practices to get him/her his religious values, which in initial days also used to create the social values too. The religious values always created the 'dos and dont's', which, particularly the 'taboos' always had a geat impact on creating cultures. In Sankrit they said 'Yah dharayate sah dharma'; meaning "whicever holds (human practices) is religion'
2. The secondary stage or initial stage of culture mix: - This was of course an outcome of wars with the interest of land capturing. The winner side always tried to impose the religious and cultural values on the loser ends. Probably this was the first sign of cultural change. Obviously the mix of two or more cutures gave birth of new dimensions.
3. The thrid or the modern phase: - This part is infulenced by many facotrs e.g. scientific researches and developments, world wars, globalization etc. This has created many things to make life comfortable and bring the cultures nearer. It also therefore has given a freedome to individuals to decide what to adopt and what not. Though still now strong religous values remain as a determining factor.
Industrial organizations also got nurtured during this 3rd phase. Hence, though it has created some short of common identities and [ractices, particularly with the invention and introduction of internet and globalization, it still bears the stigma of the local cultural values everywhere. Moreover there are laws of the lands which are again framed depending on the requirement of the local practices, hence becomes an influential factor. Family owned business are highly influenced by the beliefs and practices of the family.
The question is 'what is the need of change in organizational culture?'
Probably it is the market demand, which drives the business houses to adopt to manufacturing practices, and that is why the change is required.
The other reason could be that due overall mismatch of the expectations the productivity of an organization suffers. This also can drive the need.
Shall look forward for valuable comments.

What is culture?

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

What is culture?

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives