Nigeria Rising: The Cultural Engine of West Africa

September 2nd, 2010 by Dean Foster | Discuss This »

Yes, there is an upcoming election ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/africa/01nigeria.html?_r=1&ref=nigeria) Yes, there is the petrowealth, and all the social, political and economic challenges that brings. A stew of religions, ethnicities and cultures that mix – or dont – to a degree that always seems to make the headlines. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/africa/01nigeria.html?_r=1&ref=nigeria). But recently, beyond these facts of Nigerian life, there apparently suddenly is something more. Nigeria seems to have suddenly, if not belatedly, taken center stage as, yes, once again, and perhaps always to be, the eternally rising star of West Africa. As sub-Saharan Africa now rises, there increasingly seem to be two anchors, the Republic of South Africa in the south, and Nigeria in the west. We could of course, attribute all this to the cold facts of politics and economics (the Chinese appetite for African natural resources, the recent games in South Africa, the need for the west to find the next best region for the outsourcing of cheap manufactured goods, etc.), but we all know all that, and besides, that’s not the goal of this blog. We dig deeper, we believe there are CULTURAL reasons behind the headlines, and that when it comes to Africa, and in this case, Nigeria specifically, that there are cultural reasons for this apparently new and sudden interest.
Take a look at our latest CNN posting, which, not coincidental to what we’re saying here, has to do with the need for international businesspeople to understand Nigerian business cuklture in order to work successfully there (Checkout DFA’s latest cross-cultural CNN feature on Doing Business in Nigeria, at:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/08/31/business.etiquette.nigeria/index.html

When we hear from the world press that there is a need for cultural information about a particular country, and it gets their attention to the point that they turn to us for advice, then we know something is afoot. And it’s definitely cultural.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/nigeria/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Nigeria&st=cse

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Share/Bookmark

Latin Europe Lumbers, Latin America Lunges: What are the cultural roots for the difference?

July 8th, 2010 by Dean Foster | 1 Comment | Discuss This »

While Latin Europe lumbers along, trying to keep the best pieces of its world from falling further apart, Latin America lurches forward into the future. A number of recent economic reports argue that the reasons for the difference are possibly economic: Brazil, for example, over the past five years has done a complete 360 in terms of economic policies that allow for increased direct foreign investment, while Spain and Italy, as examples of Latin European torpor, struggle with skyrocketing unemployment and teetering economies.

Or perhaps it’s political: Most major Latin American political systems have become significantly more democratic over the last five years, according to generally accepted criteria used to measure such, while Italian, Spanish and Portuguese politics have swung wildly between paralysis and collapse. However, we here at The Culture Prophecy blog believe that the fundamental reason for this current Latin phenomenon is neither economic or political, but cultural, economic and political policies merely being superficial expressions of the deeper cultural root causes. Once again, the headlines highlight the fact that culture plays a powerful seismic role in determining the fate of nations, and with the case of this current Latin phenomenon, we also have the opportunity to understand more deeply how to effectively work with “Cultural DNA©”, something that Latin America apparently is doing successfully, while Latin Europe is not. Let’s take a closer look.

In The Culture Prophecy, we often speak of “Cultural DNA©”. Our DNA determines us human beings biologically, but humans are more than just biologic beings: we are social beings as well. And it is our culture which functions as our “social DNA”, determining much of our behavior, in conjunction with our biological DNA. Social DNA, like biological DNA is invisible in our day-to-day activities: while it serves as the fundamental determinant on the social side for how we behave, we don’t see it, the same way that biologic DNA has in the past remained invisible in determining our biologic selves. However, every aspect of our social lives, from the way individuals interact with each other, organize ourselves into businesses and families and neighborhoods, including the way that nation-states behave, can be seen as a result of our culture, the “Cultural DNA©” at the invisible heart of our social selves. Once we decode the social or “Cultural DNA”© of any given culture, we can understand better why it does what it does, whether we are looking at the behavior that exists between individuals, in organizations, or between nation-states. And, much like biologic DNA,although “Cultural DNA©” determines much of our social behavior, we need not be prisoners of it: once we are aware of it, we can control it, and choose alternative ways of behaving, organizing and living with others on this increasingly fragile planet. In many cases, the DNA of any particular culture is complex, presenting us with many possible choices, so while we cannot change our cultural programming, much like biologic DNA, we can be aware of it and the tendencies it produces, and then make choices about which tendencies we want to emphasize and which ones we want to minimize.

In the case of Latin America and Latin Europe, both share a similar Latin cultural legacy, written deeply into their respective cultural codes; in fact, it has been observed that Latin America, culturally, is in many ways an extreme expression of many Latin European cultural traits. On the other hand, Latin America, through the development of its own unique “American”—as opposed to “European”—history and experience, has also created its own unique coding which in some other ways minimizes the impact of certain traditional Latin European legacies. For example, a cultural “gene” on the unique Latin strand of “Cultural DNA©” that appears in both Latin Europe and Latin America is the strong orientation toward subjective or particularist interpretations of reality; meaning that (independent of universal rules, processes, procedures, or even commonly held notions of right and wrong), decisions and their resulting behaviors are more often determined by particular individuals (often empowered through rank, contacts, position, class, etc.), based on their subjective interpretation of the immediate situation. Historically, both Latin America and Latin Europe have struggled with this issue, putting energy and resources again and again into attempting to insure the establishment of impartial, democratic and objective societies (read: democratic governments and socially progressive economic policies), only to watch the best of these intentions collapse under the weight of imposed, subjective authority, or be manipulated by political forces, both left and right, for their own personal ends.

However, the recent disparity between Latin Europe and Latin America indicates that Latin America is having greater success at managing this cultural programming than Latin Europe, and the reason may be found in other cultural genes that distinguish the regions. Specifically, I am referring to the very strong cultural programming of “fate” or “external control orientation” in Latin Europe, the result of a confluence of history (hierarchical political control, going all the way back to the days of the Caesars) and religion (the relinquishing of one’s very personal and ultimate fate to a Roman Catholic hierarchy), as compared to a much mediated sense of fate, a greater eagerness for personal control and accountability, and even a pervasive optimism about an unknown future, that is one of the Latin American cultural genes, a result of the uniquely “American” experience in Latin America. Latin Europe seems more focused on holding onto what it has already achieved, while Latin America seems positioned to seize the moment, make a clean break with older Latin European traditions, which mired the region in a continuous cycle of economic and political turmoil, and look to the future with hope and a sense of possibility. It would be difficult to find such an ethos today in Latin Europe, and anyone evidencing such beliefs in Italy, Spain or Portugal today would be deemed naïve at best, and at worst, a fool to be taken advantage of. On the streets in São Paulo, Mexico City, Santiago, LaPaz, Bogota, and even Caracas, such an ethos today is palpable.

As mentioned, cultural coding is complex, and contradictory, in that there can be a code in the “Cultural DNA©” that allows for contradictory behaviors, with an emphasis more on one than the other. Over time, however, if we understand this, we can turn such coding into an advantage, in that we can choose to create public policy that highlights or emphasizes one value over the other. So, for example, Latin American “Cultural DNA©” includes the contradictory coding of particular subjectivism, as does Latin European coding, but the cultural coding for external control and a deeply held sense of fatalism, still so strongly programmed in Latin Europe, is significantly weaker in Latin America, and in fact, co-exists with a coding for individual accountability and a sense of future control (the national motto of Brazil is “Progress and Order”), which is generally nonexistent in Latin European cultural coding. This can become the stuff of a cultural “tipping point” for Latin America, pushing through social, economic and political decisions, behaviors and policies that might actually allow for the implementation of such policies, in turn fulfilling the cultural aspirations—or, as we would like to think of it, the cultural prophecy of Latin America, as it is becoming written large in the headlines today.

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Share/Bookmark

Does Soccer Get a “Free Pass” When It Comes to the Expression of Cultural Pride?

June 14th, 2010 by Dean Foster | 3 Comments | Discuss This »

OK, so the latest has Germany beating Australia in a World Cup game last night.  I am in Berlin this week, at a conference, and as I was walking down the Kurfurstendamm, one of the main streets of former West Berlin, early last night: all the people sitting at the cafes were facing INWARD, instead of the usual facing out to the street. Instead of watching the world walk by over their beer or glasses of Reisling, they were all focused on watching the big screen TVs that were set up in the cafes and the big game between Germany and Australia. Now walking past European cafes with everyone facing inward should have told me that something peculiar was going on: it did challenge my senses, almost on a subliminal level. By the time dinner was over, and I was walking back to my hotel, Berlin had exploded into an all-night party. Germany had won. Thousands of people had wrapped themselves in German flags, painted their faces with the German flag, and flew the German flag proudly in their cars, whooping it up, and inevitably, meeting the police from time to time, who patiently and, for the most part, successfully, diverted traffic and kept the party manageable throughout the night.

Now the overt display of nationalism in Germany, whether the flying of the flag in one’s backyard, or the massive display of German nationalist symbols at grand street events like last night, is usually a tricky thing. The bartender at my restaurant, in response to the explosive street applause going on outside the restaurant window every time Germany scored, volunteered a sentiment that has been the general mood in Germany for many, many years: “I am not fond of FICA football; too nationalistic, it is embarrassing, and not right.” Germans are to be credited for the conscious and difficult choices they have made about confronting the extreme nationalism of their past, and there is a palpable, and perhaps justified, hesitation of expressing nationalism in almost any form. Then why, when it comes to football, does soccer get a free pass.

A Brazilian friend of mine repeated a cultural truism to me recently about foreigners needing to avoid overtly wearing the colors of the Brazilian flag in their clothing—it looks kind of insulting, he said—but made the exception, when it came to international football: then, apparently, every Brazilian will be proudly wearing the green and gold, in every possible way, and foreigners at the game, best join along. South Africans, justifiably proud of their role in hosting the world in South Africa, have become the flag-waving ambassadors of not only South Africa, but of a newly emergent Africa onto the world stage, and in so doing, fly the South African flag with joyful, first-time, gusto. I was in Cairo a few months ago, during the meet between Egypt and Algeria, and the nationalist violence that accompanied that event diminished both the victor (Algeria) and the vanquished (Egypt). When it comes to international competitions, virtually no country is exempt from the “free pass” that sport provides, to wave their nationalist tendencies, as fully and overtly as they feel they can.

  • And in that fact is the question my bartender raised: should these games become an excuse for the expression of nationalism—extreme or otherwise? Is that their purpose, really? And if so, how do we square worrying over its expression with some cultures, like Germany, and endorsing its expression with others, like South Africa? Isn’t it time for celebration of nation to be replaced with celebration of global human achievement? While the Olympics strive for the latter, the World Cup, it seems, allows for the former.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark
  • The Denial of Cultural Differences? It’s a Cultural Thing.

    June 4th, 2010 by Dean Foster | 4 Comments | Discuss This »

    Intercultural consultants and trainers encounter this phenomenon all the time: Depending on the culture one is working in/with, nationals of that culture often take pains to either identify aspects of their culture which distinguish them from other cultures, or go to great lengths to reassure that essentially their culture is really no different from anyone else’s. But you don’t have to be an interculturalist to run into this phenomenon: casual travelers encounter this all the time with the “natives”, and “natives” observe this all the time with visiting tourists. Both are either trying to reassure the other that there are essentially no differences between them, or highlighting the differences that make them each unique, and perhaps mystifying/frustrating/fascinating/amazing/impossible-to-deal-with to the other.

    As an intercultural organization, we encounter this phenomenon mainly when working with nationals as “country resources” for intercultural training programs, whose insistence on either emphasizing the differences or similarities that exist between their own country and that of the country of the program attendees becomes, in and of itself, an example of one of the more profound cultural differences that our programs are designed to explore. We’ve always been amazed at the consistency of the patterns, although when highlighted as such to most nationals who are playing their cultural part in either emphasizing similarities or differences, often results in a denial that they are behaving in any culturally prescribed kind of way. That this phenomenon is itself invisible to the cultural players who take part in it is yet another example of the prophetic nature of culture, and its invisibility (and, most importantly, the reason why we talk about culture’s prophecy here in this blog, for example!).

    There may be many reasons for this phenomenon, based on what we know about the attributes, or cultural DNA, of particular cultures. For example, in general, we typically see more denial of differences in East Asian cultures, and more emphasis of differences in western continental European cultures (and, predictably, the reaction from these cultures to this statement, will itself justify the statement!). No doubt the cultural DNA of East Asia is a fundamental reason for East Asian cultural difference denial, as a major orientation in these cultures is conflict-avoidance; therefore, there is a resistance to highlighting differences which, in this part of the world, imply the possibility of conflict, something which should be avoided if one is interested in developing an on-going relationship. “Face” can be lost if differences are spotlighted, while in continental western European cultures, face is actually gained through productive confrontation. In these cultures, spotlighting the efficient, rational Socratic method of questioning and probing, even if uncomfortable and disharmonious, is admired if it yields the truth. Differences therefore are fundamental to the philosophical search for truth, fact and the best possible way of accomplishing a task. In a sense, western continental European cultures are more concerned about highlighting differences, as part of the effort to getting to the truth, while East Asian cultures are more concerned about subordinating the revelation of differences, in order to avoid unpleasant confrontation, which can only lead to increased misunderstanding and failed working relationships. The US, curiously, is somewhere in between depending on where you stand, with East Asian cultures perceiving US-Americans as confrontational and direct, emphasizing differences in an effort to achieve results, while continental western Europeans often complain that US-Americans lack an understanding that Europeans are, in fact, different from them. US-Americans, therefore, in turn often perceive Europeans as “intentionally” making things difficult and acting differently, just to “be” difficult, while perceiving Asian behavior as indicating agreement initially, and being frustrated (and suspect of the original intent) when they learn after-the-fact that there was never, in fact, any agreement in the first place.

    Beyond fundamental differences in cultural DNA, we may also be dealing with a tendency in some cultures to avoid looking less “modern,” as these cultures interact more with the western, “modern” world, while a similar burden simply does not exist for those western cultures (although western cultures might try looking a little more “sensitive” and open to the positive possibilities of working in a less “western” way). This results in a super-sensitivity on the part of many economically developing cultures to any highlighting of indigenous cultural attributes by western cultures which may be different from the shiny new world these ancient cultures are now eagerly participating in, and re-making themselves into, in many ways. No doubt, a part of it is also the residue of the awful legacy of colonialism, an internalization and self-rejection of anything that may be perceived as different from that of the former colonial master. If that is the case, it can only be hoped that former colonial masters make greater effort to value the wisdom of those ancient cultures, if not only for their own benefit, but also because these former colonies are achieving success based not only on their efforts to join modernity, but in many cases, re-defining success beyond western notions of “the modern”.

    No doubt there are many more reasons for this interesting phenomenon, and we are eager to hear about your own experiences working with cultures that emphasize or deny cultural differences. No doubt there may also be a generational aspect to this phenomenon. But no matter the factors, we are convinced that this phenomenon too, like all aspects of human existence, is fundamentally rooted in culture and cultural differences, even if the phenomenon itself is the very denial of cultural difference.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark

    Dean Foster hosts new CNN “Doing Business In…” Series

    May 27th, 2010 by Dean Foster | 3 Comments | Discuss This »

    Exploring the critical cross-cultural “dos and don’ts” for successful global work in other countries, Dean Foster hosts a new series on CNN, “Doing Business In…”, aired nationally throughout the day on CNN Airport News and on CNN.com. Highlighting a new country every two weeks, the series began the week of 17 May, 2010, and has so far aired episodes on Brazil and Japan.  This week we are looking at the important cross-cultural challenges of successful work in INDIA.  If you’re at the airport, look up at the monitor!  And to catch the shows at any time, go to CNN.com/travel, and scroll down to “Doing Business in…”, then select the country you’d like to explore.  Let us know what you think about this new CNN series, and I hope you enjoy the shows!

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark

    Celebrity Diplomacy: Getting Attention or Getting in the Way?

    May 21st, 2010 by Dean Foster | Discuss This »

    We’ve all seen the pictures and the headlines: A famous Hollywood actor or British musician is meeting with world leaders at Davos, or jostling in a land-rover in Darfur, adding their presence to another world crisis, as if their involvement actually matters.  Does it? And if so, does it do any good?

    Certainly, the idea of celebrities endorsing critical causes is a very good idea for their careers: anything that puts a celebrity further into the public mind enhances their celebrity status, and hence, their bank account.  One could, therefore, cynically dismiss celebrity diplomacy as “crisis co-optation”; however, if it actually helps ameliorate or solve the crisis, why put it down?

    That’s the question at the root of an interesting discussion on one of the groups hosted by the professional networking site LinkedIn. Some of the members’ analyses of celebrity is correct:

    A reader says, “We are hard-wired to live in village communities, but modern life makes this impossible in any real sense. The media therefore step in and create virtual villages in our heads, where real friends and neighbours are replaced by celebrities–people we think we know because we know so much about them.

    “Celebrities can make a lot of money by endorsing commercial products. Advertisers are prepared to pay them large sums, not out of philanthropy but because they know people will buy stuff endorsed by these ‘fake friends’, so it’s a worthwhile investment.

    “It therefore follows that the same psychology works with charitable and other good causes. If a well-known name visits a trouble spot, or speaks out against an injustice, the media will report the visit or the comments. When celebrities are interviewed about causes, their comments can seem naive or fatuous. However, the very fact of the media coverage draws attention to whatever the problem is, and sometimes shames governments or the international community into taking action. So all in all, celebrity involvement is a good thing”.

    Agreed … to a point. The reader’s analysis of the phenomenon of celebrity is correct, and therefore, it is a phenomenon that can be manipulated; good, bad, or neutral. If used to support and enhance efforts at diplomacy, it probably can promote public awareness and advocacy of certain efforts/causes, and this is a good thing; the downside, however, is that celebrities are not diplomats, and there is (hopefully) a professional difference.  Enhancing public awareness is one thing: professionally managing an international crisis toward an effective solution is quite another, and that should best be left to the professionals. While the public pressure celebrities put on the players in an international crisis is a good thing, it must not get in the way when the real work needs to begin.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark

    “Cultural Fluency” or “Language Fluency”? What’s more important when working globally?

    May 6th, 2010 by Dean Foster | Discuss This »

    In a recent fascinating article in the New York Times, it appears that many of the world’s dying languages have a hospice in New York City. While many languages are fast retreating in the face of globalization’s juggernaut and its accompanying ally, “Global English”, they are finding a refuge in New York City where today there may be more speakers of any one of these dying languages than there are in their original home country.  Could this fascinating phenomenon also be a metaphor for the great debate about effective global work?  If speaking the local language is actually no longer an advantage for even the locals(!), is there any real merit to continuing to even ask the question: “what’s more important, the ability to speak the language, or the ability to understand the culture?” when working in another culture?

    While there is no doubt that one can never really fully understand a culture until one also speaks – and therefore also thinks in -  that culture’s language, in today’s world of global work, is there a greater advantage to “cultural fluency” as opposed to “language fluency”?  That is, in a world where one needs to often work in multiple linguistics contexts, and where one has neither the time or resources to learn all the languages to a level of fluency that would allow for business to be conducted in those languages successfully, does it make any sense to even entertain the notion?  We know in our work developing intercultural competencies for organizations that work across national borders that attaining a level of language fluency effective enough to allow for successful work communications is virtually impossible for global managers who have to work in multicultural environments, and that the benefits of such an effort are simply outweighed by the ability to function with a respect for language differences accompanied by a level of “cultural fluency” which can be learned.  Unfortunately, this is a case of making less with more, and making the most out of a less-than-ideal situation: sure, it would be far better if all global managers could achieve a level of language fluency that would enable them to work effectively and smoothly in all the linguistic environments in which they needed to perform, and no doubt, being able to do would be an incredible advantage over those who cannot.  But this is obviously not an option for most global managers.  They have neither the time, ability or resources to succeed at this task, and it would be doomed to frustrating failure.  On the other hand, learning “just enough” of a culture (and it is our job to know what these criteria are, culture by culture), and being able to effectively put this knowledge to work through honed skills specific to the business tasks at hand, while not providing an in-depth knowledge of the culture that one would have had one learned the language, can yield the business success that a stumbling and doomed effort at language fluency would never provide.

    Increasingly, we live and work in a world where language ignorance is excused, but where cultural ignorance never is.  Rarely is a local insulted or upset when a foreigner does not speak their language: in fact, in many locations, the ability to speak any local words at all usually yields surprise (and not always accompanied with “delight”), and a disbelief that the foreigner actually knows some of the language.  But it can be difficult for the local to continuously excuse behavior that is bothersome, challenging, and at the very least, simply misunderstood, due to an inability for either party to the process to value and understand the cultural differences that stand between them.  Whether or not the need for language fluency ebbs or flows, the need for cultural fluency is always there.  And in the world today, the advantage goes to those who have developed this fluency, no matter what culture they work in.  Fortunately, such fluency can be developed, and far more quickly, easily and at far less cost, than the increasingly disadvantaged language fluency of the past.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark

    Culture and Collapse: Why the Irish Take Responsibility and the Greeks Outsource It.

    April 26th, 2010 by Dean Foster | 4 Comments | Discuss This »

    A recent Newsweek article highlighting the difference between the Greek and Irish response to their respective country’s economic collapse implies that the Irish will succeed because they take responsibility for their condition, while the Greeks are fumbling in handling their crisis because they do not.  Now, I am always looking at these events through the intercultural lens, and it strikes me that there is a powerful cultural explanation for the differences to the economic collapse in their respective countries of the Irish and the Greeks.

    From a cultural perspective, it is predictable that the Irish would take responsibility for what happened, as the Newsweek article indicates, while the Greeks seek to offload responsibility and accountability elsewhere. We are looking at the cultural legacy of internalized guilt in Ireland, its source probably a confluence of Catholicism and helpless victimization in the face of centuries of Anglo-Saxon colonialization, while in Greece the response to victimization has historically been to blame the conqueror, and to eschew accountability for their condition (probably a result of the confluence of fatalism inherent in Eastern Orthodoxy, and the historic legacy of dismissing responsibility for events over which Greeks have historically had little control).   It should not be surprising therefore that the response to the economic disaster that is now facing both countries can be directly connected to these very different cultural legacies.

    Culture is always the reason for why countries do what they do, and the reasons behind the headlines are always hidden, but revealable, if we read the cultural DNA of the nations involved.  To interpret the Irish response as more “realistic” or successful, while denigrating the Greek response, is to miss the deeper point: neither behavior has the right to any moral high ground, and the success of one at the expense of the other is not a vindication of “right” or “wrong”: these behaviors are merely the result of two different respective cultural traditions, inevitable, predictable, and controllable, as long as we understand the cultures and their inherent cultural DNA.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark

    Israel & Innovation: Understanding the Cultural Roots

    April 20th, 2010 by Dean Foster | 1 Comment | Discuss This »

    ISRAEL & INNOVATION:  For the same cultural reasons as Finland…

     

    Last week, we explored the cultural roots of innovation, discovering a connection between strong egalitarianism, and collectivist or collaborative orientation, as the cultural prerequisites for an innovation ethos.  Alternately, a strong orientation to hierarchy typically produces a climate that resists innovation, while a strong orientation toward individualistic competitive and non-collaborative behaviors, while allowing the occasionally unique idea to surface, is usually not as productive in creating an abundance of innovative ideas as a collaborative, consultative, environment.  The global evidence for this phenomena is revealed in global studies on innovation, with Finland and Israel consistently ranking on top, while global economic giants like China and Japan don’t even make the list (and the US is near, though not at, the top).  While we know that these cultural pre-conditions are fundamental, the political and economic policies that typically develop in these countries usually, no surprise, reflect these cultural fundamentals, further enhancing the blossoming of innovation, while the economic and political policies that emerge in hierarchically oriented cultures usually stifle whatever small seeds of innovation might be stirring. 

    Israel mirrors these cultural requirements: like Finland, a small country, with a strong collaborative social ethos (i.e., the “kibbutz”), and an almost knee-jerk rejection of hierarchically-imposed authority, the cultural roots of innovation are in place.  And the economic policies that emerge from being a small, innovative, socially collaborative culture require an emphasis on export, and a typically social-welfare based system, along with high taxes to pay for it all, at home.  All countries, of course, bring their own unique aspects to these formulas, as we discovered when we compared Finland, China, the Japan and the US.  If we bring Israel into the mix, we need to also consider the unique Israeli cultural aspects, including the daily – if not hourly – requirement for continuous flexibility, with an accompanying sometimes manic effort to reduce risk and uncertainty.  The fundamental cultural orientations of extreme egalitarianism and collectivist collaboration (as long as you are inside the group), coupled with the pressure for intense flexibility and control of uncertain situations, yields the remarkably innovative climate of Israel.  For more measures of who’s got the greatest cultural distance to go when it comes to innovation, go to www.deanfosterassociates.com and click for a free demo of our CultureCompass cultural comparison tool.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark

    The Cultural Roots of Innovation: Why Finland blossoms and Japan, well … doesn’t.

    April 13th, 2010 by Dean Foster | 4 Comments | Discuss This »

    Recently, Finland (yes, little Finland!) has scored … once again … as one of the world’s top three leading nations in innovation.  Once again, Japan, one of the world’s top five economies, doesn’t even come close.  And the U.S. is, well, somewhere in between.  China, predicted by many to become the number one economy in the world in the next decade, doesn’t even make the list.  The implications of this interesting stat are legion: for one thing, as the U.S. did and China will find out, you can sustain your economy based on size, influence, diversity of industry, political and economic policies, etc., for just so long, but without innovation, the steam, to use a term from a previous age, will eventually run out.  But an even more important implication is that if we explore the reasons for a country’s innovation ranking, we discover that the source of Finland’s innovation (and the comparative lack of such innovation in places like China and Japan) is cultural.  And once we can identify those cultural drivers of innovation (and those that don’t), we have a formula for maximizing the innovative possibilities at home.

    I do want to back up for a moment and clarify some things before moving forward: first, let’s not confuse industry and growth with innovation.  China has growth, Japan doesn’t.  Both have plenty of industry.  Neither, at least when compared with Finland, have innovation.  The U.S. has a lot of all of the above, but doesn’t necessarily lead anymore in any one of them.  How come?  The answer lies buried in the cultures of these countries.

    The U.S., for example, is culturally a very “individualistic” culture, for example, and in such a culture, individual ideas, and new innovative solutions, can rise to the top quickly because institutional structures reward such behavior.  Finland is culturally a very collaborative and consensus-driven culture, and innovative ideas can emerge in this kind of cultural climate because “the more brains working together (not apart), the better”. In both cases, innovation can thrive, as long as we don’t mix up the values: we will have some problems if, in the U.S., we ask the innovative individual to first consult and conform with the ideas of others; additionally, in Finland, we will run into difficulties if we start rewarding individuals on the consultative team for non-consultative behaviors.  In BOTH countries, innovation results because while one is individualistic and the other consultative, both value flattened, non-hierarchical organizations and relationships.  Finland is a hotbed of innovation precisely because its consultative and consensus-driven values are enhanced by a very flattened, egalitarian set of values, so that individuals–anyone, really–can surface an idea.  It then gets put to the group.  Japan, while highly consultative and consensus-driven, is very hierarchical in its orientation around organizations and relationships, and diametrically opposed to the super-egalitarianism and wildly flattened organizational environment of Finland (with the U.S. not being quite as egalitarian as Finland in its orientation). In both Japan and China, individuals do not surface new, innovative ideas which might not be approved by higher-ups: the Japanese cultural model has consultative teams devising the best ways to deliver on the already predetermined (hence, non-innovative) goals of the hierarchy, and the Chinese model has teams following lockstep the direction of the hierarchy (with even less innovative solutions surfacing).  In both cases, hierarchy stifles innovation (but can enhance “improvement” on already existing, and pre-approved, ideas).  No surprise, then, that in Japan we excel at improving but not innovating; in China, we excel at replicating what already exists in volumes enough to generate growth, in the U.S. we are often innovating, but not necessarily improving.  Finland, with a culture of both extreme egalitarianism and extreme consensus-orientation, excels at innovating AND improving.  (But, you ask, can it do so at the exponential levels of growth required to compete with the larger economic behemoths? Well, that’s a question of growth, not innovation … although growth without innovation, as we said earlier, will eventually run out of steam).

    Apparently, therefore, the cultural “formula” for innovation and growth is a hyper-egalitarian, consensus/collaborative oriented environment.  Mix it up with a large enough mass (population, market size, etc.) along with the political and economic policies that emerge from the above cultural formula (i.e., an open economy, as opposed to a closed command-and-control one), and you’ll also have growth.  In order for Finland and Japan to grow, in the absence of such mass, they both need to export, but in order for Japan to innovate, it must foster a more egalitarian environment.  In order for the U.S. to become more innovative, it needs to value collaborative consensus-driven, egalitarian environments, even more than it already does.  And for China to sustain its already vaulted growth (based mainly on the hierarchy energizing mass), it needs to innovate: it cannot remain the world’s factory forever, and in order to do that, it must create a more egalitarian and consensus-oriented culture.  Who’s got the greatest cultural distance to go?  The CultureCompass, an online tool that defines and compares different countries’ cultural qualities, is a first step on the way to answering that question.

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Technorati Favorites
    • Yahoo Buzz
    • Share/Bookmark