Outlook on Life: Doing-Being
Is mastery over nature or harmony with nature preferred? Is life experienced as an outcome of human effort or the workings of destiny or divine will?
In societies near the Doing pole, people want to actively shape their lives and surroundings. They value planful activities that improve their situations. Technology is cherished as a means of making progress toward a better or more fulfilled life. Being in control of their lives and environment is seen as essential.
People from the U.S. believe that their destiny is controlled by their own actions, not fate. It feels natural to control nature, as is indicated for example by ongoing research on how weather conditions can be changed or how the gender of babies can be predetermined. Problems are seen as the result of poor planning or laziness, not bad luck. Moreover, many individuals try to influence their work and natural environment in order to protect and enhance their own self-interest.
Managers, too, believe that most problems, inside and outside the organization, can be solved by prepared, well-meaning people. Nature and human institutions are perceived as almost infinitely manipulable.
This outlook is reflected in the following proverbs, popular in the U.S.: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way”; “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”; “The difficult we do at once; the impossible takes a little longer.”
In societies near the Being pole, people feel a need to live in unity with, as well as within the given limits of, their natural surroundings. They see themselves as a part of their environment and accept what life gives them. They prefer a steady and relaxed way of life that allows them to live in the here and now. They trust that things will work out in the greater scheme of things.
Much more is perceived as immutable. Humans are seen as puny compared to the forces of nature and the world. People tend to accept things as they are. After all, how much can one really accomplish in the face of the forces arrayed against change?
One of the most frustrating experiences of a Peace Corps volunteer in India had to do with his effort to protect the crops of a number of farmers in the village to which he had been assigned. When he learned of an impending infestation that would likely destroy an entire crop, he ordered the appropriate insecticide, but the farmers refused to use it. For them, the success of the crop had already been determined by God, and it was unrealistic to consider human intervention (Sayles, research notes).
In organizational life these values affect the following orientations.
Commitment to work and economic values. How important is work and material gain in the lives of employees? From the point of view of the U.S. manager, it is critically important to have employees who perceive work as a major source of self-identification and personal satisfaction. In many parts of the world, this is simply not true.
Some traditional societies don’t even have a word for work; activities related to earning a living, maintaining social relations, religious observances, child-rearing, resting, and celebrating all blur together in the course of a day, season, and year. In many countries, it is common for managers to seek to convert some business activities into social events.
Distinguishing between work and not-work is not always simple. When a fisherman plays a song that is supposed to attract fish, should that be considered work? If a day is taken to have a local shaman come in and bless the machinery in a new factory before workers will consent to work there, is that a workday, part of the commencement of operations, or a lost workday?
Except for business lunches and entertaining out-of-town customers, many U.S. managers find it difficult to socialize at work or during off-hours for the sake of building relationships. The future benefits appear amorphous, and losing time seems inefficient. They feel that one must keep busy constantly on activities which are unambiguously work. Conversely, when they relax, with family or friends, work should have no part.
Thus, it is not surprising that U.S. managers find it strange that managers elsewhere devote long evenings to mixing work-related discussions with drinking and singing. On the other hand, because they see business relationships as simply another way for people to join with each other and achieve mutually valued objectives, non-U.S. managers find it strange and intimidating that their U.S. counterparts spend so much time and money involving lawyers in business agreements.
Optimism about the future. The very concept of progress—that human welfare tends to improve over time and that activity can be linked to results—is a relatively recent western European invention. The belief that there is a relationship between personal effort (specifically hard work) and results is culture-based.
In part, attitudes toward work are dependent on historical factors that shape how employees see the future. Cultures that are periodically racked by civil wars, expropriation, and social mayhem, where the future looks bleak and tomorrow is likely to be worse than today, discourage hard work, initiative, and planning ahead.
In order to feel that they can be effective in organizations, managers and workers must have some confidence about the future. Only in cultures with growing economies, mobility, and status by achievement do people sense that they can get out of life what they “deserve” or what they “put into it.” Where optimism about the future is lacking, it is unlikely that there will be sustained energy devoted to work-oriented activity, particularly if it involves any element of sacrificing short-term returns for longer-term benefits.
One of the underlying issues in having confidence about the future is the stability of the system. The U.S. system has been one of the most stable in the world during the past century. Therefore, stability is an implicit part of the managerial and organizational models created by academics and taught to upcoming business managers. Assuming the stability of the system is not appropriate for many other parts of the world and may not be appropriate for the U.S. in the twenty-first century.
Traditional religions and the world of work. U.S. managers can feel frustrated in a world where fate determines events and where the only source of optimism is the hope that the next life may be a better one.
Many variants on the pessimistic-fatalistic theme are religious in origin. The term Islam stems from the Arabic verb meaning “to submit.” Muslims believe that the will of Allah intercedes in the most minute of human events and is unpredictable and often inexplicable. Thus a manager may be greeted by a fatalistic shrug when asking about some construction work that is progressing poorly.
Just as people in many countries do not compartmentalize work and family, they also may not compartmentalize religion, placing it above all other institutions except, perhaps, family. These types of cultural orientations toward religion are unfamiliar to people in the U.S., and to them it seems inappropriate to place religion in so powerful a role.
A recent BBC report described a Buddhist ceremony in Japan attended by senior executives of many prominent Japanese companies. The purpose was to propitiate the spirits of the electronic products and components that they were no longer producing. A more common practice is for a religious figure to visit a manufacturing plant to bless a new piece of equipment.
One U.S. executive assigned to a deeply religious country was able to broaden the scope of his understanding in this area. Initiating an alms box for the local Catholic church was, in his case, an excellent strategy to gain local respect. In that Catholic country, showing deference to local religious leaders was consistent with sound business practice. It was culturally congruent for the priest to visit the office to express appreciation and collect the offerings.
The idea that business has obligations to redistribute some of its wealth to religious institutions and that religious leaders have a role to play in business seems strange, if not inappropriate, to many managers from the U.S. and northern Europe. The religious obligations of the business sector in many societies can be disconcerting for executives not used to such practices.