Culture is a collective idea in that it encompasses a lot of
various elements of one’s daily life. More
generally, it is often analyzed against other factors to explain why a society
– or segments of a society – acts as it does.
Yet, certain theoretical approaches, among them critical theory, give this
factor, culture, short shrift. Other
factors, like economic class divisions or geographic conditions, are more
likely highlighted by those theorists or researchers.
But as the title, Culture Matters,[1] of his edited
book infers, Lawrence E. Harrison makes the case that not only does it matter,
but it needs to be accounted for when considering change or development. He describes how when trying to understand
the lack of development in certain areas of the world, cultural conditions need
to be studied and included in the mix of factors an analyst considers.
This writer wants to extend that
notion a bit. Not only are societies so
affected by culture, but so are its businesses, neighborhood organizations,
social clubs, non-profit organizations, and, of particular concern to this
blog, schools. All a society’s organizations,
albeit to a less inclusive degree, have their own respective cultures. These, in turn, reflect the societal culture,
but have their own distinguishing elements.
The reader is reminded that one of
the topics this blog has addressed is change.
While societal culture is more encompassing and helps one understand why
a people behaves as it does, an organizational culture does the same thing within
its more limited extent.
If an organization wants to institute
change of any significance, its culture surely needs to be considered. And any question one would ask of a societal
culture, with some revision, one can ask of an organizational culture. By so asking, the implementation of change is
made possible.
Harrison offers six concerns and
accompanying questions that can guide social scientists to investigate why
certain nations are able to advance – by modern standards – and some are not. This posting shares some of these concerns,
leaving the rest for the next posting.
The first concern Harrison entitles
typology. That is, he is looking at
those sentiments – in the form of values and attitudes – that either assist or
detract from the development of democratic institutions and economic practices
that lead nations to develop modern economies.
Are there, at the organizational level, similar, fundamental values and
attitudes that allow for organizational change?
This writer believes that there
is. If he is right, what are those
questions? The first question is: what are the prevailing, relevant values and
attitudes held by the subjects of an organization that can be judged to affect
a change effort? Once identified, a
second question is asked: are the
sentiments helpful or counterproductive?
Here, a change agent uses reasonable
standards to determine on which side of that divide a given sentiment
falls. But the concern is then further
extended to determine: how strongly are
these sentiments held? These questions –
all three of them – are asked early in a change effort. The concern, therefore, is to identify and
gauge these sentiments, but a bit more is suggested here.
Once identified, to gauge them, a change
agent needs to develop an empathetic understanding of how these sentiments
affect the people being subjected to the change effort and the resulting
changes. Therefore, his/her concern is not
merely a matter of asking these questions, but to develop an empathy or a
compassion for what is being revealed.
Why?
Often, these values and attitudes and, more likely, their strength, is
not consciously known by the subject.
These sentiments at times – when they’re engaged – pop up and can readily
determine subsequent behavior.[2] This condition, in other contexts, has been
amply covered in this blog. As in those
previous references, the point is that this factor makes change very difficult. Beyond that, for a change agent to be
successful, he/she needs to deal with it in a humane way.
This situation calls on change agents
to devise honest but subtle ways to solicit the information. They call on a level of trust that is not
necessarily shared in any given social grouping. This must be worked upon by establishing a
history of honest exchanges. It takes
time and sincerity.
The second concern Harrison addresses
is developing an understanding of how cultural values and attitudes affect
stated goals and this is a more nuanced concern. It is beyond the question of what are the sentiments
people hold or of how strong they are.
The concern here is the qualitative aspect of how they influence people’s perceptions and dispositions. This takes on more of a narrative quality.
For example, this writer in his maturing
years – and up to this day – was affected by the relationship between his
mother and father. It was a bit rocky,
to say the least. But if someone were to
have engaged the writer and tried to have steered him in one direction or
another, that change agent would have probably had to feel how that relationship affected him at critical times.
For example, how it made him look at
authority or how secured he would feel given a proposed change and his role in
that change. This is not shared as a
complaint or a “woe is me” account, it is what many people might share to
explain their behavior – assuming they are conscious of the effects such
earlier experiences have.
Here, to get at such insight, a bit
of story-telling would probably be necessary.
Those are elicited to acquire a qualitative understanding from where the
subject is coming. And to add to the
challenge, many times such past experiences and their related feelings are not
shared readily.
Harrison’s next concern, and the last
one treated in this posting, is how the held values and attitudes relate to the
institutions that exist within a society or an organization. Here the focus shifts from the individual
subject to the society or, in terms of what is being highlighted here, the
organization. In other words, the
question becomes: how are things done
here – the organization – and how does this proposed change affect that?
Are the existing ways well-established? Are they supported, relied upon, cherished? Or, are they disliked, detested, or are
people just indifferent toward them?
Again, these can be feelings held – or their strength are held – at a
subconscious or unconscious level.
Inquiry into these concerns can be the subject of conversations,
surveys, experimental experiences, or “what if” questioning.
This concern should be part of a
formative evaluation regimen as the change effort progresses by asking: how are the institutions holding up? Are necessary practices and modes of behavior
changing – especially at times when no one is taking note? Are the roles within the institutional
arrangements changing; are status arrangements changing; and so on?
This posting will end here. Harrison’s concerns might seem a bit obvious,
to some, but what might be obvious to an interested party is always enhanced by
a reputable source seeing it the same way.
Harrison is such a source. The
next posting will complete Harrison’s six areas of concern.
[1] Lawrence
E. Harrison,
“Introduction: Why Culture Matters,” in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, ed.
Lawrence E. Harrison (New York, NY:
Basic Books, 2000), xvii-xxxiv.
[2] For example, Timothy D. Wilson, “The Social
Psychology Narrative – Or – What Is Social Psychology, Anyway?” in Thinking:
The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction, ed.
John Brockman (New York, NY: Harper
Perennial, 2013), 99-114.
No comments:
Post a Comment