Culture as a Construct for Human Reality
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
January 29, 2002
My interest in the role of culture in organizations and the greater society has steadily increased during
the last ten years. Through my studies, I have been able to develop a working definition of culture.
Yet, identifying the underlying structure and influence of culture has proven more difficult. Each
chapter of Fons Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner's (1998) work illumined a different facet of the
complexity of culture and organizations. The principles provided confirming insight that culture
serves as the construct upon which humans base their interpretation of reality. Although the focus of
their work describes the effect of cultural differences in international business, there are a number of
interesting parallels to explore in my own personal and business experiences.
During my childhood development and first ten years of management, I was driven by the culture
and philosophy of the “One best way.” Both of my grandfather's were military men: Marine Corps
and Army. My father was an Army and Navy officer and clinical psychologist. For many years, I
was marginally unaware of the impact that military life and culture had on my development. As a
child, I became well versed in the code of conduct expected of officer’s children, and followed a
rigid structure, code of ethics, and protocol that prescribed how to behave, make decisions, avoid
mistakes, and relate to children of enlisted personnel. I believed that there was a best way to deal
with every problem or situation, and that commitment and success meant following protocol without
compromise: A philosophy that would lead to a long road of personal and professional challenges.
The best way philosophy was helpful in many respects, but proved too inflexible, hierarchical, and
class-based to work effectively in a non-military organizational context, and when applied to solving
complex problems with high levels of uncertainty. As stated by Paul Bohannon (1995) culture is “a
combination of the tools and the meanings that expand behavior, extend learning, and channel choice”
(p.8). In other words, the tools and meanings supplied by my cultural context strongly influenced my
philosophy of decision-making, leadership, and management, and I assumed that others shared the
same beliefs. In effect, I subscribed to the same flawed guru mentality that managers have applied in
national and international settings as described by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) “in
which managers or researchers decide unilaterally how the organization should be defined” (p13).
The correct protocol or best way approach revealed other limitations. As a consultant, I worked in
several industries and believed in de-emphasizing the cultural differences of the organizations. Or as
stated by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), I treated culture as a “dish on the side,” when
in reality “culture pervades and radiates meanings into every aspect of the enterprise” (p.16). I
rationalized that the same management paradigms applied regardless of the type or industry of the
organization. Although my reasoning had some merit, it did not take into account how different
organizations perceived the models. In retrospect, some of the unenthusiastic responses I received
may have been attributable to cultural differences-and admittedly to the limitations of the consultant.
The lessons learned from these experiences marked a turning point in my philosophy: I began to
question the “One best way.”
One of my most challenging professional experiences was working as a project manager (PM) for a
web development firm to develop and implement an enterprise level web system for a major client. I
was hired as the third PM seven months into the project, and my review of the request for proposal
(RFP) and related planning documents revealed that the client’s organizational culture had not been
considered in determining the project’s feasibility. Interviews with key stakeholders from the
different divisions also exposed differing expectations. Some stakeholders viewed the project as a
positive opportunity for creating economies of scale and revenue sharing, while others as a plot by
the corporate office to force assimilation. The perception of many of the stakeholders privately was
that the project was unnecessary and designed to benefit the corporate office.
The vision for the project was to build a fully integrated web site based on a single visual standard
and a centralized content deployment system within two years. Yet, the organization had only
recently evolved towards cooperative planning and budgeting. The organization was still struggling
with being geographically separate, culturally diverse and historically competitive for more than fifty
years. Although the RFP outlined a web project, in reality corporate executives would later confirm
that they actually desired a change initiative driven by the web technology. However, as stated by
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), “Changes in a culture happen because people realize that
certain old ways of doing things do not work any more” (p.23). These factors set the stage for a
project with unclear goals, a timeline and budget that doubled, conflict between vendors, power
struggles between divisions, and extreme stakeholder opposition resulting from a failure to establish a
clear agenda and mutual expectations.
During the course of the project, I encountered multiple crisis situations that required me to augment
my understanding of the dynamics of organizational change and culture. At every turn there was a
paradox. For example: Is it possible to build a web infrastructure that met the divisions demand for
complete autonomy and the executive order that it function as an integrated system? Or how do we
reach consensus on critical technical decisions with non-technical people? We spent weeks modeling
different planning and system designs to accommodate everyone’s needs. The challenge was
compounded by the fact that the divisions were already distrustful of the corporate office, and the
corporate office did not have a positive view of the divisions. When corporate tried to enforce
policies, the divisions formed temporary alliances to create opposition. And the corporate office
formed alliances to oppose the divisions and each other.
Based on our assessment of the situation, divisions adopting an individualist position with “reliance
upon one’s own exertion and resources” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), p. 58) might
gain stability and protection, but at a high cost to the organization. Similarly, a communitarian
approach might improve cooperation, but at a high cost to the creativity and autonomy of the
divisions. Finally, a solution was clear: we would incorporate a balanced approach to system design
in line with Trompanaars and Hampden-Turners (1998) view where “individualism finds its
fulfillment in service to the group, while group goals are of demonstrable value to individuals only if
those individuals are consulted and participate in the process of developing them” (p.60). Now, the
issue was that we were responsible for the technology, but establishing the trust and shared goals to
successfully implement the system required organizational development.
After weeks of research, planning and preparation, we presented our findings to the executive team.
Unfortunately, our efforts were unsuccessful in part because we were “techies” attempting to
present the problem with a limited perspective of the situation. Several of the executives were visibly
frustrated but not completely surprised by what they heard; however, we were not fully prepared for
their response. Ironically, they viewed the web technology as the catalyst for the organizational
changes they needed, and we viewed their leadership as the catalyst for the organizational changes
we needed to successfully implement the technology. The organization and our team was caught in a
vicious circle where the “universalist position is encouraging opposition from the particular position”
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p.43). We worked hard and did the best we could to
launch the first phase of the project; a release that met with denial, criticism, and political fallout.
The web project experience was like a case study in (stress?) management. Working through the
organizational obstacles to get the web system designed, tested, and launched required the sum total
of all of my professional experience. The project gave me an opportunity to be tested, reevaluate and
observe almost every professional challenge I confronted over the years. My appreciation for the
complexity, power and influence of value systems, software, politics, and organizational culture grew
exponentially. I developed a deeper respect and openness to diverse ideas and perspectives. The
potential shift in my philosophy was affirmed, and as stated by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1998), “The one best way of organizing does not exist” (p. 13). Further, objectivity is relative and
culture serves as the construct upon which humans base their interpretation of reality. The launch
date for the international web portal was September 11, 2001. An experience we will never forget.
References
Bohannon, P. (1995). How Culture Works. New York: The Free Press.
Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture (2nd ed.)
New York: McGraw-Hill.
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
January 29, 2002
My interest in the role of culture in organizations and the greater society has steadily increased during
the last ten years. Through my studies, I have been able to develop a working definition of culture.
Yet, identifying the underlying structure and influence of culture has proven more difficult. Each
chapter of Fons Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner's (1998) work illumined a different facet of the
complexity of culture and organizations. The principles provided confirming insight that culture
serves as the construct upon which humans base their interpretation of reality. Although the focus of
their work describes the effect of cultural differences in international business, there are a number of
interesting parallels to explore in my own personal and business experiences.
During my childhood development and first ten years of management, I was driven by the culture
and philosophy of the “One best way.” Both of my grandfather's were military men: Marine Corps
and Army. My father was an Army and Navy officer and clinical psychologist. For many years, I
was marginally unaware of the impact that military life and culture had on my development. As a
child, I became well versed in the code of conduct expected of officer’s children, and followed a
rigid structure, code of ethics, and protocol that prescribed how to behave, make decisions, avoid
mistakes, and relate to children of enlisted personnel. I believed that there was a best way to deal
with every problem or situation, and that commitment and success meant following protocol without
compromise: A philosophy that would lead to a long road of personal and professional challenges.
The best way philosophy was helpful in many respects, but proved too inflexible, hierarchical, and
class-based to work effectively in a non-military organizational context, and when applied to solving
complex problems with high levels of uncertainty. As stated by Paul Bohannon (1995) culture is “a
combination of the tools and the meanings that expand behavior, extend learning, and channel choice”
(p.8). In other words, the tools and meanings supplied by my cultural context strongly influenced my
philosophy of decision-making, leadership, and management, and I assumed that others shared the
same beliefs. In effect, I subscribed to the same flawed guru mentality that managers have applied in
national and international settings as described by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) “in
which managers or researchers decide unilaterally how the organization should be defined” (p13).
The correct protocol or best way approach revealed other limitations. As a consultant, I worked in
several industries and believed in de-emphasizing the cultural differences of the organizations. Or as
stated by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), I treated culture as a “dish on the side,” when
in reality “culture pervades and radiates meanings into every aspect of the enterprise” (p.16). I
rationalized that the same management paradigms applied regardless of the type or industry of the
organization. Although my reasoning had some merit, it did not take into account how different
organizations perceived the models. In retrospect, some of the unenthusiastic responses I received
may have been attributable to cultural differences-and admittedly to the limitations of the consultant.
The lessons learned from these experiences marked a turning point in my philosophy: I began to
question the “One best way.”
One of my most challenging professional experiences was working as a project manager (PM) for a
web development firm to develop and implement an enterprise level web system for a major client. I
was hired as the third PM seven months into the project, and my review of the request for proposal
(RFP) and related planning documents revealed that the client’s organizational culture had not been
considered in determining the project’s feasibility. Interviews with key stakeholders from the
different divisions also exposed differing expectations. Some stakeholders viewed the project as a
positive opportunity for creating economies of scale and revenue sharing, while others as a plot by
the corporate office to force assimilation. The perception of many of the stakeholders privately was
that the project was unnecessary and designed to benefit the corporate office.
The vision for the project was to build a fully integrated web site based on a single visual standard
and a centralized content deployment system within two years. Yet, the organization had only
recently evolved towards cooperative planning and budgeting. The organization was still struggling
with being geographically separate, culturally diverse and historically competitive for more than fifty
years. Although the RFP outlined a web project, in reality corporate executives would later confirm
that they actually desired a change initiative driven by the web technology. However, as stated by
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), “Changes in a culture happen because people realize that
certain old ways of doing things do not work any more” (p.23). These factors set the stage for a
project with unclear goals, a timeline and budget that doubled, conflict between vendors, power
struggles between divisions, and extreme stakeholder opposition resulting from a failure to establish a
clear agenda and mutual expectations.
During the course of the project, I encountered multiple crisis situations that required me to augment
my understanding of the dynamics of organizational change and culture. At every turn there was a
paradox. For example: Is it possible to build a web infrastructure that met the divisions demand for
complete autonomy and the executive order that it function as an integrated system? Or how do we
reach consensus on critical technical decisions with non-technical people? We spent weeks modeling
different planning and system designs to accommodate everyone’s needs. The challenge was
compounded by the fact that the divisions were already distrustful of the corporate office, and the
corporate office did not have a positive view of the divisions. When corporate tried to enforce
policies, the divisions formed temporary alliances to create opposition. And the corporate office
formed alliances to oppose the divisions and each other.
Based on our assessment of the situation, divisions adopting an individualist position with “reliance
upon one’s own exertion and resources” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998), p. 58) might
gain stability and protection, but at a high cost to the organization. Similarly, a communitarian
approach might improve cooperation, but at a high cost to the creativity and autonomy of the
divisions. Finally, a solution was clear: we would incorporate a balanced approach to system design
in line with Trompanaars and Hampden-Turners (1998) view where “individualism finds its
fulfillment in service to the group, while group goals are of demonstrable value to individuals only if
those individuals are consulted and participate in the process of developing them” (p.60). Now, the
issue was that we were responsible for the technology, but establishing the trust and shared goals to
successfully implement the system required organizational development.
After weeks of research, planning and preparation, we presented our findings to the executive team.
Unfortunately, our efforts were unsuccessful in part because we were “techies” attempting to
present the problem with a limited perspective of the situation. Several of the executives were visibly
frustrated but not completely surprised by what they heard; however, we were not fully prepared for
their response. Ironically, they viewed the web technology as the catalyst for the organizational
changes they needed, and we viewed their leadership as the catalyst for the organizational changes
we needed to successfully implement the technology. The organization and our team was caught in a
vicious circle where the “universalist position is encouraging opposition from the particular position”
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998, p.43). We worked hard and did the best we could to
launch the first phase of the project; a release that met with denial, criticism, and political fallout.
The web project experience was like a case study in (stress?) management. Working through the
organizational obstacles to get the web system designed, tested, and launched required the sum total
of all of my professional experience. The project gave me an opportunity to be tested, reevaluate and
observe almost every professional challenge I confronted over the years. My appreciation for the
complexity, power and influence of value systems, software, politics, and organizational culture grew
exponentially. I developed a deeper respect and openness to diverse ideas and perspectives. The
potential shift in my philosophy was affirmed, and as stated by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1998), “The one best way of organizing does not exist” (p. 13). Further, objectivity is relative and
culture serves as the construct upon which humans base their interpretation of reality. The launch
date for the international web portal was September 11, 2001. An experience we will never forget.
References
Bohannon, P. (1995). How Culture Works. New York: The Free Press.
Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture (2nd ed.)
New York: McGraw-Hill.
| Copyright © Knowledgeark.net, 2016 |
| Terms and Conditions |
Knowledgeark.net > Organizational Development > Culture as a Construct for Human Reality
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |