Discussion: View Thread

From: Paul Wong [mailto:wong@twu.ca]

Not too long ago, there was considerable discussion in this list on
Corporate culture. I am now proposing the construct of work climate as
related to and yet distinct from corporate culture.

To me, corporate culture is relatively persistent or resistant to change,
because it is consisted of entrenched assumptions, values, practices and
organizational structure. Work climate, on the other hand, is more fluid and
transient -- it refers to the psychological atmosphere as perceived by
workers. Work climate can be affected by one single mean boss or a
bad-tempered co-worker. Work climate can be described by the following
dimensions: warm-cold, safe-unsafe, peaceful-tense, etc.
I would like to hear your comment on my distinction between corporate
culture and work climate.

Paul Wong
wong@twu.ca

From: Valerie Hey [mailto:Valerie.Hey@brunel.ac.uk]

Dear Paul

I think you may be right to make the analytical distinction - work climate
being more idiosyncratic but I think it is hard to distinguish them in
experience and reality. The changes in governance/funding/ethos in UK
universities seems to have shifted academic relations and modes of
behaviour profoundly (in some institutions) I speculate that this has
a psychic undertow construed as a 'fictive' 'fantastic' relation to an
imagined model of what corporate culture is like. The Association of
University Teachers web page has a report on academic conditions of work
and questions of stress, workplace bullying were specified in the context
of the loss of academic autonomy in an audit culture. But I welcome any
attempt to specify questions of the distinctions being put in place in
academic institions and between institutions.
I make no claim to being a management expert, so references and further
details would be appreciated.

Valerie Hey
Brunel University, UK
edstvvh@brunel.ac.uk

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:54:50 -0400 Charles Wankel <cxx@bellatlantic.net>
wrote:

> From: Paul Wong [mailto:wong@twu.ca]
>
> Not too long ago, there was considerable discussion in this list on
> Corporate culture. I am now proposing the construct of work climate as
> related to and yet distinct from corporate culture.
>
> To me, corporate culture is relatively persistent or resistant to change,
> because it is consisted of entrenched assumptions, values, practices and
> organizational structure. Work climate, on the other hand, is more fluid
and
> transient -- it refers to the psychological atmosphere as perceived by
> workers. Work climate can be affected by one single mean boss or a
> bad-tempered co-worker. Work climate can be described by the following
> dimensions: warm-cold, safe-unsafe, peaceful-tense, etc.
> I would like to hear your comment on my distinction between corporate
> culture and work climate.
>
> Paul Wong
> wong@twu.ca

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:nickols@optonline.net]

Regarding Paul Wong's distinction between corporate culture and work
climate:

> corporate culture is relatively persistent or resistant to change,
> because it is consisted of entrenched assumptions, values, practices and
> organizational structure. Work climate, on the other hand, is
> more fluid and
> transient -- it refers to the psychological atmosphere as perceived by
> workers. Work climate can be affected by one single mean boss or a
> bad-tempered co-worker. Work climate can be described by the following
> dimensions: warm-cold, safe-unsafe, peaceful-tense, etc.

Makes sense to me and I've always drawn a similar distinction. Almost 30
years ago, when I was doing survey-guided development (a now arcane and
apparently forgotten approach to organization development), we used "climate
surveys" and we used them to get at the work climate, not the culture. More
important, perhaps, you can quickly enlist people to work on changing the
"working environment" or "climate" (the workers because they usually dislike
aspects of it and the managers because they've long since bought the notion
that performance is a function of individual and environmental variables so
the work climate is a valid target to them). But, when you target the
"culture," all kinds of hackles and defenses go up. Why? Because anyone
who's been in the workplace for longer than 15 minutes recognizes that for
what it is: A pronouncement by senior management that they are going to
change "the way things work around here." What that signals is that working
relationships that took years to build will be placed in jeopardy;
well-intentioned nincompoops are going to monkey with processes they don't
understand; victories will be declared where only defeat occurred; and
everything will be "spun" to give the illusion of progress and achievement.
After a while, "things will get back to normal" (the layman's term for the
restoration of homeostasis) and perhaps that will be a slightly different
normal. Then again, perhaps not.

I'll also state the obvious: There will be some "corporate tricksters" who
will attempt culture change under the guise of improving the working
climate.

What? Me a cynic? No way!

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@optonline.net

From: Howard Miller [mailto:hmiller2@uswest.net]

Check out Charles Hulin and Mary Roznowski, Psychological Bulletin, late 80s
or early nineties - they talked about work v. job environments in a very
similar fashion.
cordially,
Howard Miller
hmiller2@uswest.net

----------------------
From the Mg-Ed-Dv Discussion Fomenter:
Charles Hulin's website is:
http://io.psych.uiuc.edu/fac/charles_hulin.htm

From: Fearon, David (Management) [mailto:Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu]

Paul, this makes enormously good sense. Studying corporate culture
is like showing learners the tops of trees looking down on a dense
Connecticut forest from a small plane. What matters to each living
creature down there is what is happening in their specific little
patches of dappled light and shadow.

David Fearon
Central Connecticut State University
Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu

-----Original Message-----

Not too long ago, there was considerable discussion in this list on
Corporate culture. I am now proposing the construct of work climate as
related to and yet distinct from corporate culture.

To me, corporate culture is relatively persistent or resistant to change,
because it is consisted of entrenched assumptions, values, practices and
organizational structure. Work climate, on the other hand, is more fluid and
transient -- it refers to the psychological atmosphere as perceived by
workers. Work climate can be affected by one single mean boss or a
bad-tempered co-worker. Work climate can be described by the following
dimensions: warm-cold, safe-unsafe, peaceful-tense, etc.
I would like to hear your comment on my distinction between corporate
culture and work climate.

Paul Wong
wong@twu.ca

From: tom.walsh@equant.com [mailto:tom.walsh@equant.com]

Greetings,

I like the visual of a forest, especially since I'd offer that an
environment is a subset of the culture, just as a glen or plot of dense
undergrowth are components of the forest. Granted, what matters to each
living creature at ground level is what is happening in their specific
patch of the forest, but if development encroaches from the outside the
effects to the forest as a whole will eventually effect the creatures in
the middle at some point. A culture fosters certain types of actions and
attempts to discourage others which in turn could be seen as manifestations
of the workplace environment (simplistic, but entrepreneurial vs
bureaucratic). Most interesting thread...... Thanks

Tom Walsh
tom.walsh@equant.com

-----------------------

Paul, this makes enormously good sense. Studying corporate culture
is like showing learners the tops of trees looking down on a dense
Connecticut forest from a small plane. What matters to each living
creature down there is what is happening in their specific little
patches of dappled light and shadow.

David Fearon
Central Connecticut State University
Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu

-----Original Message-----

Not too long ago, there was considerable discussion in this list on
Corporate culture. I am now proposing the construct of work climate as
related to and yet distinct from corporate culture.

To me, corporate culture is relatively persistent or resistant to change,
because it is consisted of entrenched assumptions, values, practices and
organizational structure. Work climate, on the other hand, is more fluid
and
transient -- it refers to the psychological atmosphere as perceived by
workers. Work climate can be affected by one single mean boss or a
bad-tempered co-worker. Work climate can be described by the following
dimensions: warm-cold, safe-unsafe, peaceful-tense, etc.
I would like to hear your comment on my distinction between corporate
culture and work climate.

Paul Wong
wong@twu.ca

From: esteban.trevino@neoris.com [mailto:esteban.trevino@neoris.com]


Could someone define the meanings given to the terms because to me both
denote the same thing?

Culture - The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the
functioning of a group or organization

Environment - The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or
group of organisms,
The complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the
nature of an individual or community.

Both to me describe the emerging traits resulting from the interaction of
the parts involved with varying degrees of abstraction. Thus as Tom and
Fred stated, changes in one perturb the other, though the end state results
turns out to be to complex to determine for the time being. David gave us
an analogy of looking at the forest from a plane. In this case I wonder
about acid rain, would this be both a cultural and an environmental
concern? Again the distinction between culture and environment becomes
blurred, dependant on the level of abstraction used.

Granted, the second term presents a more fluid, workable and explorative
metaphor while the first presents a more fixed defined permanent
description of the situation. Though neither focus on actively generating
the emerging traits desired. Destiny seems to be ordained insead of a
resulting consecuence of the parts interactions.

Cordially,

Esteban Trevi�o
esteban.trevino@neoris.com

From: Fearon, David (Management) [mailto:Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu]

I am enjoying reading the works of Karl Weick (See Making Sense of the
Organization, Blackwell, 2001). He would have us view culture and
environment as inventions of the individual thinker/experiencer. One
whose has constructed a highly complex viewpoint on his or her
organizationness might see both the forest and the trees (to torture
my metaphor a bit more). Others, only that sun dappled universe
at his or her feet. In other words, the meanings of the terms that
govern organizational behavior are the sense each member makes of
that which they "see" to be outside of their selves.

I am not doing Weick justice, rushing this reply. I hope it
"makes sense".

David Fearon

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Wankel [mailto:cxx@bellatlantic.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:43 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Corporate culture vs. work climate


From: esteban.trevino@neoris.com [mailto:esteban.trevino@neoris.com]


Could someone define the meanings given to the terms because to me both
denote the same thing?

Culture - The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the
functioning of a group or organization

Environment - The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or
group of organisms,
The complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the
nature of an individual or community.

Both to me describe the emerging traits resulting from the interaction of
the parts involved with varying degrees of abstraction. Thus as Tom and
Fred stated, changes in one perturb the other, though the end state results
turns out to be to complex to determine for the time being. David gave us
an analogy of looking at the forest from a plane. In this case I wonder
about acid rain, would this be both a cultural and an environmental
concern? Again the distinction between culture and environment becomes
blurred, dependant on the level of abstraction used.

Granted, the second term presents a more fluid, workable and explorative
metaphor while the first presents a more fixed defined permanent
description of the situation. Though neither focus on actively generating
the emerging traits desired. Destiny seems to be ordained insead of a
resulting consecuence of the parts interactions.

Cordially,

Esteban Trevi�o
esteban.trevino@neoris.com

From: sharbroughw [mailto:William.Sharbrough@Citadel.edu]

To echo what Fred said, when I did my dissertation in the early 80's I used
an
instrument from Litwin and Stringer which wasn't new at the time that
measured
organization climate. I think I remember the discussion of culture and
climate going on even back then.

I never thought I might be one of the "OLD" guys, but these topics keep
coming back.

William Sharbrough
The Citadel
William.Sharbrough@Citadel.edu

From: Charlotte Bowden [mailto:hrmash@xtra.co.nz]

Sounds like the difference is that work climate reflects the internal
politics that go on in an organisation - the personality clashes, the
hidden agendas - which are often in total contrast to what the
organisational culture is actually supposed to portray!
Charlotte Bowden
mailto:hrmash@xtra.co.nz

From: Davis, Miles K [mailto:miles.davis@eds.com]

This brings up an interesting point. How does one separate corporate
culture and values from individual culture and values.

MKD
Miles K. Davis
miles.davis@eds.com

-----Original Message-----

Sounds like the difference is that work climate reflects the internal
politics that go on in an organisation - the personality clashes, the
hidden agendas - which are often in total contrast to what the
organisational culture is actually supposed to portray!
Charlotte Bowden
mailto:hrmash@xtra.co.nz

From: Charlotte Bowden [mailto:hrmash@xtra.co.nz]

Perhaps the concept of organisational personality is relevant here.
Organisational personality refers to the aggregate personality of the
organisation's individual members. This, of course, has implications for
person-organisation fit, in that people who do not share the same or
similar personality characteristics as the members of the organisation are
likely to leave. The organisational personality is generally defined by
the leader of the organisation who influences those below. If someone does
not have the same personality or values etc, then over time they do
polarise towards the dominant member of the organisation. If they don't,
the person may then leave. Schneider et al. (1998) researched this in
their article on shared personality characteristics. Basically, the ideas
are based on Schneider's (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition model and
attempts to tease out organisation socialization processes from shared
personality characteristics as a mediator of attrition. Not very
successfully, I might add, but nevertheless an interesting topic area that
I wanted to base my thesis on!

Charlotte Bowden
hrmash@xtra.co.nz

-----Original Message-----

This brings up an interesting point. How does one separate corporate
culture and values from individual culture and values.
Miles K. Davis

From: Goodman, Eric [mailto:EGoodman@COS.Coloradotech.edu]

Interesting discussion about culture and climate...You may want to take a
look at the Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate published by
Sage, 2000 (edited by Neal Ashkanasy, Celeste Wilderom and Mark Peterson).
It is a wonderful compilation of articles related to numerous aspects of
culture and climate (perhaps as a co-author of one of the articles I am
biased, nevertheless it has been nominated for the Academy of Management's
George R. Terry Award).

Eric Goodman
egoodman@coloradotech.edu

From: esteban.trevino@neoris.com [mailto:esteban.trevino@neoris.com]

Davis, et all

Your point bring up a whole set of underlying questions: Can one separate
the corporate and the individual cultures? Do these two permeate each other
leading to particular biases that affect the senses each member uses to
makes out that which they "see" to be? What defines and influences the
personality of the individual and the collective? If someone does not share
the predominant personality or values etc, then are they forever outcasts
excluded from the dominant member of the organization? What factors play a
role that enable outcasts to shine, contribute and enrich the community? In
the duality of individual and collective why can some individuals change
the whole while the whole changes others? What tools can be applied to
enhance and direct existing forces towards enriching and building a
sustainable symbiosis?

Cordially,
Esteban
-----------------------------

From: Davis, Miles K [mailto:miles.davis@eds.com]

This brings up an interesting point. How does one separate corporate
culture and values from individual culture and values.
Miles K. Davis

From: TQM1BOB@aol.com [mailto:TQM1BOB@aol.com]

Paul:
This is not a new concept, but how you presented it is the seed for a best
selling book! This is especially true in academic locations where the
structure is based on silos (departments), each of which compete for
funding.

Most sincerely yours,
Bob Cornesky
tqm1bob@aol.com

----------------------
From: Paul Wong [mailto:wong@twu.ca]
Not too long ago, there was considerable discussion in this list on
Corporate culture. I am now proposing the construct of work climate as
related to and yet distinct from corporate culture.

To me, corporate culture is relatively persistent or resistant to change,
because it is consisted of entrenched assumptions, values, practices and
organizational structure. Work climate, on the other hand, is more fluid and
transient -- it refers to the psychological atmosphere as perceived by
workers. Work climate can be affected by one single mean boss or a
bad-tempered co-worker. Work climate can be described by the following
dimensions: warm-cold, safe-unsafe, peaceful-tense, etc.
I would like to hear your comment on my distinction between corporate
culture and work climate.

From: Charlotte Bowden [mailto:hrmash@xtra.co.nz]


Well as mentioned in my post, organisation socialisation processes can play
a big role in how people fit in and whether they stay or leave.
Organisation socialisation is basically a fancy term for orientation or
induction. Orientation is a crucial way to communicate organisational
values and expectations and how things are done, the culture of the
organisation etc. If an individual perceives that their personal values etc
match those of the organisation they are more likely to stay with the
organisation than those who don't perceive that their personal values etc
match that of the organisation. Of course, there are many mediating
factors - job satisfaction, pay, etc etc and this is the challenge of
research - to tease out which factors have the greatest influence

From: MarthaFinn@aol.com [mailto:MarthaFinn@aol.com]

I read a fantastic book called Creating Commitment by Michael O'Malley this
past week. He includes some examples of what companies do to induct new
hires
into the organization. Some companies, he says, actually throw parties for
the new hire so everyone can get acquainted in a low-pressure, positive
environment (which beats the heck out of giving farewell parties, don't you
think?).

Martha Finney
MarthaFinn@aol.com

From: Fearon, David (Management) [mailto:Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu]

Read First Break All the Rules, by Buckingham and Coffman, of the Gallup
organization. The Gallup research shows that far and above all other
factors contributing to the excellent people you want to stay is that
they percieve they are led by a great manager. That puts the ball
squarely in our court as educators of managers, does it not? Are
we turning out functionaries or people who know how to earn the best
talents for their companies day in and day out? Yes, earn.

David Fearon
Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu

Carol Ann Halliday [mailto:CAHalliday@emeraldinsight.com]

How in the boundryless world internal organizational culture is dynamically
affected by external perceptions of stakeholders and associated expectations
of the values etc. of the organization (which might be affected by
PR/advertising emanating from the organization to its stakeholders). Is
there a multi-level "you become who you pretend to be" operating? What
literature is most germane to this?
Thanks
Carol Ann
CAHalliday@emeraldinsight.com

From: tom.walsh@equant.com [mailto:tom.walsh@equant.com]

Thanks David for the reference, and till I can get my hands on a copy
could
you expand on "great manager". I'm wondering are the authors referring
solely to one's direct supervisor and do they make distinctions based upon
level? I've seen small departments leave a company with their direct
manager (similar to a CEO taking a number of their direct reports), but am
curious about a managers effect when there are buffers of other mangers
between them (ie: a great division manager's effect on line level workers
who may have one or more levels of management between them). Thanks in
advance.

TCW
tom.walsh@equant.com

-----original message-----------

Read First Break All the Rules, by Buckingham and Coffman, of the Gallup
organization. The Gallup research shows that far and above all other
factors contributing to the excellent people you want to stay is that
they percieve they are led by a great manager. That puts the ball
squarely in our court as educators of managers, does it not? Are
we turning out functionaries or people who know how to earn the best
talents for their companies day in and day out? Yes, earn.
David Fearon

From: David Fearon [mailto:Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu]

Direct at every level - each person's manager, including each manager's
manager. The key is in the relationship which they find must have the
mutual goal of the managee's growth and development in and for the
organization.

David
Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu

-----Original Message-----
Thanks David for the reference, and till I can get my hands on a copy
could
you expand on "great manager". I'm wondering are the authors referring
solely to one's direct supervisor and do they make distinctions based upon
level? I've seen small departments leave a company with their direct
manager (similar to a CEO taking a number of their direct reports), but am
curious about a managers effect when there are buffers of other mangers
between them (ie: a great division manager's effect on line level workers
who may have one or more levels of management between them). Thanks in
advance.

TCW
tom.walsh@equant.com
David Fearon

From: mike.kiska@artesyn.com [mailto:mike.kiska@artesyn.com]

It may be that individuals whose personality characteristics don't match
aggregate personality tend to leave the organization. Or they can stay and
work
for change.

As the new HR manager at this particular plant, I perceived that the
collective
values of the management group (work climate?) did not match our posted
corporate values. I decided that as the new HR manager, it must be my duty
to
bring about a closer match. I did this by advocating my own values (which I
perceived to be more closely aligned with the company's stated values, of
course) during management meetings, publishing short "lectures" on my view
of
how our corporate values could be integrated into our daily actions (work
environment?) on the HR bulletin board which I controlled, instituting
management training classes for the management team (I was a corporate
trainer
for 20 years before being asked to try the HR Manager role), and sitting
down on
several occasions with what you have called the "dominant personality" and
debating the differences between that manager's value system and my own.
And
now that manager has left the company.

Did I have the right to do any of this? Is my set of values any more
"right"
than this other manager's or anyone else's? The work environment has
changed.
I hope it has moved closer to the published corporate values. But I am
uncomfortable with being the "change agent" without any other input than the
tacit approval of executive management. Actually, what I'm really
uncomfortable
with is the fact that my peer group of managers can be so easily led, first
one
way and then another.

We have numerous sites around the world and I don't know what goes on at the
others. So is it the work environment that has changed or the culture?
Certainly there were a set of "entrenched assumptions, values, and
practices" in
effect when I switched from Corporate Trainer to HR Manager and now those
assumptions, values, and practices have changed at this site.

I have been "lurking" in this group for over a year now, picking up pieces
of
wisdom and applying them in appropriate classes. I am most appreciative of
this
group and hope my first post has not been too far off topic.

kiska

From: David Fearon [mailto:Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu]

Krista, happy to hear from a practitioner who values
learning. I am thinking about those "posted company
values" to which you allign your own. Have your
management group members taken formal occaisions to
question those statements in the vein of Argyris'
double loop learning? Perhaps what that are exhibiting
in their behaviors is more like the "real" set
by which they and those who oberve them are operating.
Or, are those values "cold", now relegeted to
the Lexan cubes we see on so many corporate desks?

David

From: Kim Boal [mailto:KimBoal@TTU.EDU]

Dear Colleagues, As always, the MG-ED-DEV eForum makes for interesting
reading. The last two commentaries by David Fearon and Mike Kiska raise two
fundamental issues about leadership. One is the difference between
"leadership in organizations" and "leadership of organizations." The
second has to do with "leadership at a distance" versus "leadership up
close." Space would not permit me to try to comment on these and other
recent ideas about leadership here, but those interested in research on
"Strategic Leadership," ie., leadership "of" organizations might wish to
take a look at a paper Robert Hooijberg, at IMD, and I co-authored titled,
"Strategic leadership research: Moving on" that appeared in Leadership
Quarterly, 11(4), 515-549.

Reagrds, Kim Boal

Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

From: mike.kiska@artesyn.com [mailto:mike.kiska@artesyn.com]

We have not formally questioned our published value statements, but it is an
excellent idea (Again, a piece of wisdom I can use. Thank you.). In the
"leadership" classes I have been holding, we are still in the process of
exploring the dynamics beneath the management practices we have identified
that
were not effective in the past - that being the first step in Argyris's
Theory
in Action learning process. I was intending to use the company's core
values to
guide us in the "invention of new meanings" and the "production of new
actions."
But I would also like to use double loop learning type exercises at the end
of
the process to gauge the extent to which the core values have been
internalized
by the management team. That would tell me something about the
effectiveness of
the process I have been using.

And how did you know we have Lexan cubes? Have you been in our plant!?!

kiska

-------------------
From: David Fearon [mailto:Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu]

Krista, happy to hear from a practitioner who values
learning. I am thinking about those "posted company
values" to which you allign your own. Have your
management group members taken formal occaisions to
question those statements in the vein of Argyris'
double loop learning? Perhaps what that are exhibiting
in their behaviors is more like the "real" set
by which they and those who oberve them are operating.
Or, are those values "cold", now relegeted to
the Lexan cubes we see on so many corporate desks?

David

From: David Fearon [mailto:Fearon@mail.ccsu.edu]

Ah, if only I had the Lexan cube monopoly, I'd
keep this sabbatical I am on going for about
five more years, so as to really have the time to
dig into my subject - the emergance of knowledge
management and what it means to management practice.

David

From: rbacal@escape.ca [mailto:rbacal@escape.ca]

On 17 Jul 01, at 17:28, Charles Wankel wrote:

> From: Davis, Miles K [mailto:miles.davis@eds.com]
>
> This brings up an interesting point. How does one separate corporate
> culture and values from individual culture and values.
>
Believe it or not, perhaps the first step is not using the word culture to
refer to group characterstics AND individual. Culture refers to a set of
norms, values, etc held in common by a group as a whole.

If we use it to talk about individuals it gets muddy and results in effect,
a move to make the term meaningless.

My boss had a phrase. She called it the new move towards "I'm a
culture, you're a culture, each of us is a culture" in diversity training.

Robert Bacal


Robert Bacal - Work911.com Business/Mgmt. Supersite. Visit the Article
Indexing Project to list your articles or browse the hun
dreds li
sted
http://www.articles911.com

From: Nicholas Twigg [mailto:ntwigg@i-55.com]

So Robert, what do you suggest we call "personal culture"? I have
trouble seeing culture or climate as a personal thing. What did Schein
say about the differences many years ago? Now values, beliefs, and
attitudes are individual and can have commonality in the group or
organisation, but don't we define them differently.
Just a thought,
Nick
ntwigg@i-55.com

-------------------

> Believe it or not, perhaps the first step is not using the word culture to
refer to group characterstics AND individual. Culture refers to a set of
> norms, values, etc held in common by a group as a whole.
> If we use it to talk about individuals it gets muddy and results in
effect, a move to make the term meaningless.
> My boss had a phrase. She called it the new move towards "I'm a
> culture, you're a culture, each of us is a culture" in diversity training.
> Robert Bacal

From: rbacal@escape.ca [mailto:rbacal@escape.ca]

>Nick wrote:
>
> So Robert, what do you suggest we call "personal culture"? I have
> trouble seeing culture or climate as a personal thing. What did Schein say
> about the differences many years ago? Now values, beliefs, and attitudes
> are individual and can have commonality in the group or organisation, but
> don't we define them differently. Just a thought, Nick ntwigg@i-55.com

I agree, and I think we should use precise words and not use the same
word for both. I look at it this way. Picture a large circle which we
would call culture(s). (Actually it is a series of circles representing a
number of group culture levels (since a person is a member of various
cultures/sub-cultures).

At the center of those circles sits yet another small circle, which
alludes to the individual attitudes, values, of an individual, influenced by
the outer cultural circles, but not identical with the "cultures".

Does this make sense and/or answer your question?

Robert Bacal


Robert Bacal
rbacal@escape.ca
Work911.com Business/Mgmt. Supersite
http://www.articles911.com

From: esteban.trevino@neoris.com [mailto:esteban.trevino@neoris.com]

The descriptions sounds like an atom with electons as the surrounding circle
and the nucleus at the center.

--------original message-------------

I agree, and I think we should use precise words and not use the same
word for both. I look at it this way. Picture a large circle which we
would call culture(s). (Actually it is a series of circles representing a
number of group culture levels (since a person is a member of various
cultures/sub-cultures).
At the center of those circles sits yet another small circle, which
alludes to the individual attitudes, values, of an individual, influenced
by the outer cultural circles, but not identical with the "cultures".
Does this make sense and/or answer your question?
Robert Bacal
Visit us at http://www.neoris.com/