NO, NO and NO: Culture is NOT the sum of behaviours
Carsten Busch
Safety Mythologist and Historian. The "Indiana Jones of Safety". Grumpy Old Safety Professional.
Earlier this week, I posted a quite blunt reaction on LinkedIn about someone stating that culture is the sum of behaviours in an organisation. It was as simple as “tallying up” all behaviours and if things did not add up, then a culture transformation was needed.
This statement about culture is pure nonsense. I have said as much. However, time to provide some explanation (in fact, I have received some requests). Here it comes:
Culture
Let me first touch on a possible description of what culture “is”. Imagine we observe a group of people over a longer period of time. They interact with each other, with their environment, with their tools and so on. After a while, we will most likely observe regularities in the things they do, how they talk, the rituals they perform, perhaps in the way they dress, etc. When we try to explain these regularities, we assume that there is some governing “force” present. This, we call “culture”.
Note one: We cannot observe culture directly. It is a construct that helps us to explain our observations. It is a product of our brains to make sense of something.
Note two: Culture is always connected to a group of people. One individual person does not “have” a culture, but each individual in a group is influenced by culture and in turn, each person also influences culture to some degree.
NOT a sum
Having established some kind of a basis, let’s now debunk the “culture is the sum of behaviours” nonsense. I will offer two ways of bust this myth.
The first version is related to the process. As we saw, culture is about a group of people. Without any form of conscious effort to “change”, “create”, “transform”, “establish”, “engineer” or “install” from anyone in the group, some kind of culture will come into “existence” (except, it does not exist in the way a physical object exists – remember, it is a construct, but we will be able to observe effects – e.g., the mentioned regularities). So to speak, culture grows quite naturally over time. With a more difficult word we would say that it “emerges”. Emergence is typically something that happens in complex systems. This should not surprise us, because a group of people is a complex system. Since culture is related to a complex system, linear descriptions such as “sums” are entirely inappropriate.
The second, and perhaps simpler explanation of why culture cannot be the sum of behaviours is a logical one. If culture is something which affects behaviour and culture at the same time is affected by behaviour, how can culture then be the sum of what it affects and is affected by? I think one circular causal connection is enough…
A rule of thumb
There you have is. Culture is NOT the sum of behaviour. And let’s just extend this: culture is the sum of nothing else. This provides a useful rule of thumb: Whenever someone speaks of culture in simple terms, be suspicious. If simple explanations are offered that reduce things to single factors (e.g., awareness, leadership) or simple linear processes, be suspicious. Do they in any way equate behaviour to culture, they should probably be talking about something else – remember The First Rule of Culture!
---
In case you want to read more about problematic views of culture, or other myths within the realm of safety, check my books:
Gest?o de Seguran?a | Ocupacional | Processos | Projetos e Empreendimentos | Especialista em Fatores Humanos | Ergonomia da Atividade | Consultor *All views are my own*
11 个月"Very interesting, Carsten, but I have difficulties with some points I understand that a culture is a property of a collective and is directly linked to the practices, the praxis specific to that collective (just as the etymological sense of words is linked to one or more specific practices of the people who coined the word). Of course, culture is not a mere sum of practices, but it is inexorably determined by its constituent practices. Thus, if we want to change a culture, the point of intervention would be a change in the practices upon which it is structured. Is there a contradiction between this and your text? Another point is when you mention that it is a product of our brain, our construction. This reminded me of an audio from caio Pimenta that I heard earlier today, where, according to him, both for Peirce (based on philosophical reflections) and Maturana (based on biology), the "general" / the "organization" would not be just names and abstractions but rather realities that instantiate 'particulars' / 'structures'. What do you think about this discussion here, Caio? I don't disagree with what you wrote, Carsten, but I think there are more details in the relationship between cultures and practices, individuals and system
Utvecklingsledare, V?rd och omsorg, Partille kommun
11 个月Maybe "sum" should be replaced by "effect/outcome" and put "groups" after effect and before "behaviour". ..."the effect/outcome of a groups behaviour/actions/manifestation" ...
???????????????????????? ?? ???????????? ???? #1 ???????????????????? “???????? ???????????????????? ???????????? ????????????????????” ?? ???????????????? ???? ???????? ???????????????????? ?????? ??????
1 年Well said Carsten ??
Partner at Point b BV: Energy-transition consultants. Chair of the North Sea Heliports Alliance
1 年Cultuur is gestold gedrag
Security, HSE & Business Continuity at Emaar Entertainment
1 年Carsten Busch Firstly I do agree that the pure (sum) definition is not adequate. Secondly you have used two foundational points, namely: Note 1, says, culture is a "mental construct" Note 2, says culture is a "social construct" , and accordingly we can't talk about culture unless there are 2 persons or more together. Based on this I would like to more explore your ideas on this topic via two questions (if you don't mind): Which one is more elementary, mental or social construction? Are you trying to use a phenomenological approach, to address the question (what culture is?)?