Culture is a unique feature of many nations and societies; therefore, it partially influences an individual’s values and approaches towards life. Cultural structure is a highly debated topic, where the main models are static and dynamic cultures. It can be defined as the collective commonalities of behavioural patterns that belong to a specific group of people. Societal customs, mores and courtesies are the tip of the cultural iceberg, which can be easily observed (Anitha & Farida Begum, 2016). However, it is difficult to see the values and assumptions which shape cultural norms. Unlike human nature and an individual’s personality, the cultural aspect of a person is learned and acquired through societal influence. The key property of culture is the fact that it is shared by a group of people, therefore they possess a specific perception of the outside world (Ugrin, Pearson, & Nickle, 2018). Another essential part of a culture is uniqueness which distinguishes a given societal group from others. All these factors collectively account for creating culture as a unique behavioural phenomenon present among humans.
Human mental programming can be divided into three main categories: human nature, culture and personality. Every part is tightly interconnected with each other, which defines the commonalities and differences in one’s behaviour (Yudice, 2017). The personality of an individual is a product of both their environment and genetics; thus, it is highly specific for every person. On the other hand, human nature is broadly universal and it mainly resides and functions as a result of genetics. However, culture is an intermediary level of mental programming which belongs to a unique group or category of people (Al Saifi, 2014).
Cultural traditions and norms are passed to each generation by the older ones, therefore, culture is fully learned and acquired by individuals of it. Culture possesses several layers, which differ in ways of seeing them (Al Saifi, 2014). According to Hofstede, every culture consists of three main components: artifacts, norms and assumptions (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, & Roth, 2016). Cultural artifacts can be easily observed and defined through food, architecture or language. Norms and values form a focused framework for a society, and they are not as visible as artifacts. The most hidden and implicit features of any culture are assumptions and beliefs, which are challenging to define and explain. All these factors determine and build a collective mental programming pattern.
Culture can be divided and categorized into levels depending on its size and span. Every country possesses a specific cultural aspect, which is unique to the nation’s citizens. This constitutes national culture, which is greatly influenced and shaped by the physical environment and historical events. This type of culture can have subcultures depending on ethnicity and region. Although organizational culture highly resembles the national culture, the are some key differences. Both national and organizational cultures share programming patterns, but the latter is expressed through meanings and behaviours, respectively. The relationship among individuals of organizational culture is conditional, whereas unconditional relationships are present in the national culture.
Culture is a product of collective mental programming, which plays an essential role in forming the values and customs of every nation. Although there are some debates over the dynamics of a culture, it can be defined as common behavioural patterns and attitude towards life, which are among the key layers of human behaviour. It is positioned as intermediary level of uniqueness in the pyramid of human mental programming alongside the human nature and personality. Culture is acquired and learned as a feature of a society and it is highly unique to a specific group of people (Kerkhoff & Pilbeam, 2017). On the other hand, human nature is inherited programming and it encompasses all people, therefore it is universal across nations. On the contrary, personality is a complex mental behavioural pattern, which is influenced by both genetics and environment, but it is highly specific to an individual.
Furthermore, culture consists of three main layers: artifacts, values and assumptions. Artefacts are the outermost layers, which are effortless to observe (Mazanec, Crotts, Gursoy, & Lu, 2015). Values are not easily visible, but they can present themselves under a proper analysis. Lastly, assumptions are mostly hidden and they require deeper investigation and study in order to be clearly shown. All these factors play a crucial role in forming and shaping the cultural aspect of nations.
The shape and dynamics of the culture have been a topic of numerous academic debates due to the two main conflicting views. The first idea claims that culture is static in nature, which means that it can be measured and defined (Eslamieh, 2018). Static or “onion” cultures are multi-layered and possess only on specific dimensional property. For example, a culture cannot be both collectivistic and individualistic at the same time; therefore, only one of these features can belong to the given culture. On the other hand, there is a concept of a dynamic or “ocean” culture. This view emphasizes flexibility and elasticity of cultural dimensions; thus, it focuses on an idea of fluidity (Choi, Im, & Hofstede, 2016). Under the idea of a dynamic culture, it can include and possess both individualistic and collectivistic values.
Moreover, some cultures can present a unique mixture of these opposing and different views (Siakas, Georgiadou, & Siakas, 2018). This was named “ocean” culture because waves form specific patterns depending on location and time (Eslamieh, 2018). In other words, cultural values and attitudes of the social changes based on the given situation and condition.
Lastly, both static and dynamic views present highly convincing and sound arguments. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand that both ideas are at risk of oversimplification, which can have a detrimental effect on cross-cultural studies. This phenomenon is commonly known as stereotyping, which can lead to undesired consequences of cultural appropriation. According to recent studies, the academic community is shifting its views from static to “ocean” culture. It is strongly argued that cultures and sub-cultures exist not only at the national level but also among organizations and small groups.
References
Choi, K. S., Im, I., & Hofstede, G. J. (2016). A cross-cultural comparative analysis of small group collaboration using mobile twitter. ScienceDirect, 65(5), 308-318.
Eslamieh, R. (2018). Monologism of Hofstede’s static model vs dialogism of Fang’s dynamic model: Contradictory value configuration of cultures through the case study of farsi proverbs. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 6(2), 32-46.
Kerkhoff, L., & Pilbeam, V. (2017). Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach. ScienceDirect, 73(1), 29-37.
Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48(3), 299-304.
Siakas, K. V., Georgiadou, E., & Siakas, D. (2018). Knowledge sharing in distributed teams: Influence of national and organizational culture. Entrepreneurship, Collaboration, and Innovation in the Modern Business Era, 13(1), 22-37.
Al Saifi, S. A. (2014). Positioning organisational culture in knowledge management research. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 164-189.
Anitha, J., & Farida Begum, N. (2016). Role of organisational culture and employee commitment in employee retention. ASBM Journal of Management, 9(1), 17-28.
Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2016). An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1), 30-47.
Ugrin, J. C., Pearson, J. M., & Nickle, S. M. (2018). An examination of the relationship between culture and cyberloafing using the Hofstede model. Journal of Internet Commerce, 17(1), 46-63.
Yudice, G. (2017). The globalization of culture and the new civil society. Taylor and Francis, 23(7), 353-379.