Are innovative organizations about to become the harbingers of global cultural evolution?
Geert Hofstede studied how values in the workplace are influenced by national cultures. His data indicates that nations indeed differ with regard to their cultures, which reflect very particular sets of values, behaviors and traits. For example, the US values “individuality” above all other traits, and values “long term orientation” the least. Compare this to China, which, Hofstede found, values “long term orientation” the most, and “individuality” the least.
Conversely, innovation requires fluid and agile movement among all cultural traits. Organizations that want to innovate to stay competitive must, therefore, adopt an open and inclusive corporate culture, regardless of the outside, national culture.
In this case, could organizations that adopt cultures of innovation birth a wider movement for cultural evolution on a national, and even a global, scale?
Please share your thoughts!
Dear Julia,
“Culture” is a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted concept and one needs to accept that cultural change takes place when enforced over long periods of time measured in decades probably.
Geert Hofstede’s national cultures are an aggregation and we are all aware that within the national culture, sub-cultures thrive and sustain groups and communities while having a very tenuous connection to the national culture. Hence, while we can use the national culture for a broad understanding, I believe that one needs to delve a couple of layers below depending on the requirements and the segment to be addressed.
In China the Cultural Revolution had to be sustained through centralised pressure and with some very harsh action against people failing to confirm. However, the changes taking place since the death of Chairman Mao Zedong is an indicator of the extent of cultural change at the grass root level. Today’s younger generation of China that is educated and having access to and experience of other national cultures does exhibit greater level of individuality than their parents.
Innovation, in my perspective is one facet of Culture. Hence, while it will have an impact on culture, whether it can be a driver of global cultural evolution is difficult of predict.
With warm regards.
One can but hope…
Julia
To me the two are interlinked.
Today’s organizations need to be innovative in order to survive and continue growing. This need for innovation is a result of a cultural/social change that has swept the world. You and I are today, keenly on the lookout for the next version, the next idea, the next interesting innovation and hence the demand for innovation from product and service providers has gone up.
I believe a cultural change is already sweeping across the globe, it is this change that is fuelling the innovation engine, it is this culture change that is causing a tectonic shift in global power dynamics with India and China fast emerging as economies to contend with.
The developed world is struggling with economic survival while the so called developing world is taking a dominant place in the world.
This too is a result of (and this is one part of it) a consumptive culture in the developed world and a productive culture in the developing world.
In India for instance, we don’t even think about work-life balance. We’re too busy catching up for now. But it is this hunger, this desire to sacrifice the present in order to build a great future that defines the success of Indians and Chinese in the US.
It would be great if you put this up as a question instead of a comment. Q&A gets far more responses on LinkedIn and would love to see what the larger community has to say about this!
Hope this helps!
Julia,
Innovation happens regardless of “culture” (which is a broad term). Innovation occurs in all places throughout time because people want to improve their lives, various processes, save effort, and improve outcomes. The broad aceptance of innovation, or the disemination and distribution, or acceptance of innovation depends on many factors, culture being one of them.
Examining the link between National Cultures and innovation you will see that in spite of cultural differences throughout history innovation existed, and flourished in all parts of the world. Britain and the USA were great innovators during the “industrial era”, while China, and Egypt were great places of innovation (scientific) in different eras, as were Rome and Greece culturally, and politically innovative. For innovation to spread and become accepted the innovator had to benefit from some superior “distribution” means (whether through geographical dominance, being the hub or trade routes, or economic superiority).
Hi Julia,
Absolutely true, Julia. Organizations that pursue innovation in a broader scale are able of instilling new business practices, create cultures dominantly driven by innovation, encourage a creative mindset in their employers and generate a ripple impact in the whole society that in the long term can create a new culture, that in some cases could signify a sort of cultural revolution.
But these massive changes in the whole culture of a society requires apart from long time to be accepted collectively, the collective acceptance of a new paradigm as happens many years ago with the introduction of cheap cars for all of the workers thank to the serial production approach introduced by Henry Ford.
Henry Ford was a leader who had the dream of making cheap cars to make them accessible to common American workers. Aimed with this vision, Ford worked closely with true expert managers in manufacturing to develop the first infrastructure enabled to build vehicles by applying the principles of mass production characteristic of modern assembly lines.
Henry Ford made true his promised vision when his company was able to offer million of Fords model T to affordable prices with the precondition of that these cars were painted in black. In those times and aimed with the goal of assuring true economies of scale there were no other options of choosing a color different than black or other model different than Ford T.
Henry Ford was smart in identifying the needs that the market would want to fulfill: A car for everybody. He had an inspiring vision, he was a leader executing his vision and he worked hard with the best engineers and technicians of his time to introduce innovation in a nascent market and thereby make history as one of the greatest entrepreneurs in 20th century.
I hope this helps you.
Octavio
Dear Julia:
Cultures are no longer isolated in today’s global world. Although changes to the fundamental cultural values occur over a period of time, the degree of extremes are slowly but surely moderated through this contact. This in itself is a demonstration of innovation.
Organizations that create inclusive cultures get to create a work environment where both strengths & weaknesses are acknowledged and everyone works collectively to leverage the strengths. In such an environment, innovation cannot but happen.
Regards
Raghu
Julia
we have seen products of innovation both from the east and the west. this only shows that the culture of innovation can cut across cultures, social and national boundaries.
what we have to be mindful of of this – the innovation process can be universal. the approach and practices must suit the local context
warmly
henry
Culture is resident in behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that a group accepts. As such, innovative organizations in and of themselves cannot necessarily be harbingers of global cultural evolution. Usually it is an amalgam of factors that cause cultural evolution. For example the use of ‘always on’ or pervasive technology may be having a significant influence in the culture of global business but it is not any one company having a singular impact or influence. It is the combination of technology providers, service providers and integrators/aggregators that are combining to change the ways in which business is conducted.
I would also say that one organization’s approach to innovation may not necessarily be a fit for the next. The understanding of culture within an organization tends to be diffused when extended beyond the boundaries of that organization unless there are systems for it’s ongoing support and sustenance. Unilever’s approach to personal care innovation is not the same as Apple’s approach to innovation in hardware and software, is not the same as Toyota’s automotive manufacturing innovation, is not the same as ArcelorMittal’s innovation in metals and mining. Yet each organization can be considered a successful innovator in their respective markets. In each case, while the culture of innovation is certainly a part of mix, it is the over-arching corporate culture that determines success. Transferring that success to another enterprise is no easy feat (let alone transferring it to a wider social context.)
Where I think you see the impact of innovative organizations is not through their cultural manifestations, but through their products and services. From personal experience an example would be American films and TV programs being broadcast in Australia, where I was raised. That programming did more to influence cultural norms than any innovative organization could hope to. In that sense I think it is the common use and experience of similar products and services that creates memes that underpin and drive cultural evolution and not the innovative culture of the producers.
Below is a link to the work of Fons Trompenaars who is a consultant specializing in the culture of diversity and in the impact of cultural difference in the business world. His latest book with his associate Dr. Charles Hampden-Turner is called, Innovating in a Global Crisis, and may be of interest.
Links:
http://www.thtconsulting.com/main/index.php
Hello Andrew —
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. And thanks, as well, for the link to the book. I’ve just pre-ordered it, and looked at thtconsulting.com. Wow. Very much up my alley. Are you affiliated with those guys?
I’m going to extend this conversation with you, if you don’t mind. If you don’t have time to respond, I completely understand.
You mention the influence American entertainment had on you when you were growing up in Australia. However, while I don’t doubt that this fare introduced you to new perspectives, the fact is that Australia and the US both started as British colonies, and probably have more in common culturally than other nations positioned so far apart on the globe! In fact, I was amazed at the similarities when I visited Australia.
So, let me get more to the point. When I refer to cultural evolution, I’m referring to the ways national cultures embrace as Truth values and viewpoints, such as masculinity, individuality, community, etc. To do so, a culture that values masculinity, for example, must de-value femininity. As you point out, changing cultural attitudes is a slow evolutionary process.
But, introduce the incentive of wealth generation, and that evolution could be sped up. If, for example, a manufacturing firm in the US realizes that creating collaborative teams (against the US cultural value of independence and hierarchy) and iterative processes (non-linear, therefor feminine) will improve their innovativeness and hence their bottom line, they will form those teams. Someone reads the research and realizes that these teams will work best if differing viewpoints are included, and training occurs to make the team members less resistant to difference. Team members are taught about cognitive fluency, and how to integrate processes from multiple domains, and how to break out of their own functional fixedness. Attitudes and processes and entire outlooks must also change if those teams are to receive the support, buy in and agility they need to perform effectively. And as they do, won’t the workers in those firms, at least some of them, begin to change their personal attitudes as well? Pie-in-the-sky, I know, but couldn’t this internal change on the part of individuals within organizations begin to spread to their values outside the organization, effecting how they raise children, the kinds of entertainment that speaks to them and their openness to dissimilarity?
Hello, Julia,
No, I’m not affiliated with THTConsulting (yet – ) but I have been a huge proponent of Trompenaars’ work. His insights have been a factor in my own success in my past role as a leader on the management team of a global consulting firm and in doing work with multinational clients.
From your clarification, I believe I understood your original reference to national culture correctly and would stand by my response. A case in point would be the collectivist approach of what was originally termed the Toyota Production System (TPC) and has since been re-labeled Lean methods in Western manufacturing performance improvement practices. TPC focuses on team-based, continuous, targeted performance improvement of manufacturing and production systems and processes. It is rigorous in it’s approach and has been wildly successful when appropriately applied across both business cultures. And yet, it does not have much, if any traction in terms of cultural evolution beyond the business world.
If we go looking for adoption of cultural manifestations in terms of truths, I see many people taking behaviors learned during their education or travels abroad and adopting them to their ‘native’ cultures. For example, the Indian educational exodus to the USA is now becoming a reverse exodus back to India as people decide to return to the country and culture of their birth to raise their own families. Are they taking back new ideas? Absolutely. Are they changing the national culture as you propose, not directly and not swiftly. The process is more embrace and adapt (Bill Gates former Microsoft credo when battling competitors) rather than wholesale adoption of practices of the West.
The interesting thing for me, Julia, was that I am actually old enough to straddle the transition in Australia from being incredibly Anglo-centric to being USA-centric. There was a sociocultural shift that was quite marked and it took place within my generation. Today when I return to visit family and friends the shift is even more interesting as the Far-and-SouthEast Asian influences, due to expanding trade and increased regional travel, play out in art, design and food in particular.
I think global cultural evolution is not the result of any one influence it is the result of a multitude of influences and who knows which ones will find fertile ground? My favorite example of this is Guinness beer. Ireland is the world’s number one consumer of Guinness. Did you know that number two is Nigeria?!?!?
Will innovative companies influence culture? Perhaps, but not in ways that you or I might recognize.
Love the dialogue. Thanks for the prompt!
Hi Julia,
Great question, something I’ve been working on developing since I graduated. I tend to somewhat agree with Henry and would add that when innovating, we tend to get lost in cultural differences such as collectivism vs. individualism as Hofstede study showed us, which are very important points. I have found that at the core of all innovation in regards to culture is commonalities we are share and there isn’t much emphasis on this in the corporate world. Local context is absolutely important to keep in mind however if models we create are inclusive and mindful of human commonalities the success of such model may be highly increased. I have developed a model for consulting, COMAND, see http://www.uniteinvision.com for its components and description. This model takes 6 aspects that are shared globally and individually across cultures. I continually cultivate as a way of being and approach for my consulting. I provide training and workshops to my clients and promote to corporations.
I would love to know all opinions on this model in regards to the question posed above: “Could organizations that adopt cultures of innovation birth a wider movement for cultural evolution on a national, and even a global, scale?”
dr. Manijeh
http://www.uniteinvision.com
http://www.mindfulvalley.org
Great subject as ever, Julia – but to do it justice a book-length analysis is required. There are so many ramifications, and the historical record is so mixed (why?), that any short answer would be so superficial as to be well-nigh worthless
Hi Julia,
I’ve enjoyed reading through this chain. I agree with many of the comments suggesting that culture both reflects and informs how people make decisions, including their leadership style and ability to draw from other cultures as a source of inspiration for innovation; how institutions operate, including corporate readiness to embrace innovation; and the processes people choose to adopt, including innovative processes and products.
How does culture inform/shape/reflect a group’s ability to innovate? To me, innovation is a change in process or deliverables resulting from an insight–the realization that something can be done better. And, insight is the product of a particular time and place, which includes culture, personal history, technology, general economic climate, legal systems, and probably dozens of other factors. None of these exist in a vaccum; Values/beliefs/attitudes shape the laws we enact, which impact commerce, which influences global economies, etc. The innovative process/deliverable is then executed in a certain way, again reflecting culture, personal history of the participants, technology, and so on. In this definition of innovation, culture is but one driver underlying innovation. It’s an important one, and clearly a well-known one, given all the examples of diffusion of innovation across cultures that we’re readily able to cite.
You’ve probably picked up on the fact that I’m using the term “culture” in two ways. One is a fairly narrow definition to mean a group’s shared values, attitudes, and beliefs. However, I also refer to “other cultures” or “across cultures”, which really is a short-hand way of saying “people who live somewhere else and do things differently from us”. Why am I being a stickler about definitions?
As many of the commentators here have noted, a great deal of innovation comes from observing other cultures (the broad definition) and bringing their good ideas home. But I’m less clear about how specific values/attitudes/beliefs (the narrow definition) relate to innovation. For example, how does valuing “individuality” for an American affect his/her ability to innovate? How is this different from the way that a Chinese person, who values collectivism, would innovate? I would argue that both Americans and Chinese are equally able to innovate, but what they’d choose to focus on as being important targets for innovation might be different, and the way that they’d execute their insights might be different.
There’s another big topic in this thread, which has to do with cultural evolution. I’m not sure, but I believe you’re talking about changing values/beliefs/attitudes on a fairly small time scale–one that’s observable over the course of your or my (or our kids’) lifetime. When I think of cultural evolution, I tend think about a much longer time frame–hundreds or thousands of years. Why is this? Well, attitudes/believes/values are notoriously resistant to change. (There’s a reason why every marketer targets Key Opinion Leaders when they have a new product prior to general rollout!) Given my premise that culture exists as part of a system along with technology, law, commerce, education, and a host of other factors, it takes a big jolt to the system to change culture. Examples of “jolts” throughout history include: the technological and symbolic changes from Mousterian to Aurignacian cultures that are associated with replacement of Neanderthals by anatomically modern humans; the invention of the printing press, which provided access to information to previously illiterate people; and the birthcontrol pill, a medical innovation credited with changing attitudes towards women’s place in Western society. My point is that these innovations, which led to meaningful lasting cultural change, are not everyday occurrences. There are plenty of innovations that are worthwhile (White Out, i-pods) that improve our lives in some way, but I’m not sure they’re drivers of cultural evolution. As you continue to think about your question concerning the role of corporations in leading innovation, and ultimately, cultural change, you might flesh out:
–What is the scope of innovation that you believe will drive cultural evolution?
–To what extent do corporations typically spearhead innovation (as opposed to government, think tanks or eccentric geniuses like Edison)?
–What is the tipping point that finally enables an innovation to gain funding and widespread adoption? Think, for ex., of “green technologies” vs oil/plastic companies. We have had the technology for quite a while to increase fuel efficiency in autos, but as a society have not demanded that this innovation become funded and available. What has changed in our culture that is now driving fuel-efficient technologies? I’d hypothesize that new information about climate change has led to placing a greater value on green technologies–this might be an example of a change in culture driving a technological advance, rather than the other way around.
–When you speak about a corporate culture of innovation, which is inclusive and open, are we really talking about a corporate culture that fosters innovation or one that fosters communication and teamwork?
Thanks so much for the chance to comment,
Best regards,
Suzanne
Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!
Great post thx a lot !