The TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Perception Questionnaire is a great tool and may serve your purpose

http://teamstepps.ahrq.gov/Teamwork_Perception_Questionnaire.pdf

This looks fascinating. I am teaching a (very basic) course this semester on Cultures of Business. Any information on this would be extremely welcome.

Some cross-cultural work has been undertaken using experimental economics techniques by Joe Henrich et al. and Benedickt Herrmann et al. It has mainly investigated variation prosocial dispositions which may be quite important in levels of cooperation in teams. At any rate, there are major differences in people's ability to organize cooperation in lab games. Hermann et al. validated their experimental work against indices of civic cooperation and rule of law. Henrich et al. validate their work by using experienced ethnographers to administer the experiments and help interpret the results in light of the ethnographers' detailed knowledge of the cultures.

One of my students, Tim Waring, worked on the influence of caste diversity and caste hierarchy on cooperation in Indian villages and found that caste hierarchy was especially damaging.

A group of psychologists who call themselves social identity theorists have done a lot of work on group leadership, communication, and performance. You might get some interesting ideas from that literature. See a textbook by S. Alexander Haslam.

Herrmann, B., Thöni, C. & Gächter, S. (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319: 1362-1367.

Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, P. & J, Z. ( 2010) Market, religion, community size and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327: 1480-1484.

Waring, T. M. & Bell, A. V. (2013) Ethnic dominance damages cooperation more than ethnic diversity: results from multi-ethnic field experiments in India. Evolution and Human Behavior 34(6): 398-404.

These articles are not exactly what you need but may still be helpful, specifically the DeShon piece.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189.

DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035.

Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., & Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 247.

Interesting area - I do a lot of work in the organisational and national culture. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Measurements include - hidden coping systems - preference for different types of change (1st 2nd Order - 6 in total) - understanding of introvert extrovert and left right brain. This is based on several models but the core is from Professor Clare W Graves. I have a suite of online assessments - happy to share. My thesis is downloadable this covers the concepts but has moved on since 2008.

This has been used in health and safety, health care, mining, police and so on. The work starts with the individual's coping mechanism in a given set of life conditions and then looks the gaps between the group averages and the indivdual. This shows preferred learning, management, communications and motivational styles. The model can also look at espoused versus hidden and perceived.

In your case this might show how each person reacts and implements policies in a given organisational or national culture. For example the high ego individualistic person who can manipulate the process and procedures to their own ends while apparently adhering to the system.

Attached is a very early draft of a paper which shows the interplay between the elements of the model.

About your first idea (National culture affects the speed of communication between team members) there’s so much written. I recommend you to read Guo-Ming Chen.

He started validating a Scale about intercultural sensitivity (that has to be with intercultural communication and competences) among students.

We have applied that scale in other contexts, more specifically, at the Andalusian Public Social Services, here in Spain. In our case, foreseeing that workers would have high levels of self-attributed intercultural competences (as it turned out to be) we introduced a question pool with a series of real-life situations to see if they could apply those competences that they referred they had.

Results has shown, among others, that workers has difficulties to put into action competences (above all) due to the lack of motivation for intercultural encounters, and because they don’t have a real interaction with other cultures (even if they work with migrants). This affects communication heavily.

If you read Spanish you can see some of my contributions that have to be with intercultural competences in Social Services. We’re now publishing one article in English about this matter.

Here there are the references. The most valuable article for your idea could be the last one:

Chen, G. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Paper en Bienal Convention of the Pacific and Asian communication Association. Pacific and Asian communication Association, Honolulu (Hawaii).

Chen G.M. & Starosta, W. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A Synthesis. En Burelson B.R. y Kunkel A.W. (Eds.) Communication Yearbook 19 (pp. 353-383). Londres: Sage.

Chen, G., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human Communication 3, 1-15.

Guo-Ming Chen (2010) The Impact of Intercultural Sensitivity on Ethnocentrism and Intercultural Communication Apprehension. Intercultural Communication Studies XIX: 1

Many thanks for so many interesting and informative answers, it will take me some time to work through them all, and this answer is only an initial reply to the first three answers ...

TIMOTHY CLAPPER: I've had a look through the TeamSTEPPS TPQ; the correlation with HSOPS certainly adds to confidence in the tool. For my immediate purpose, I am stuck with the fact that I am having to predict team performance when all I know is the national culture(s) of team members and likely education/qualifications. However, the recurrence of key constructs such as leadership, communication and situation monitoring (I have been utilizing leadership&management, communication and situation awareness in my models) is reassuring. I've sent the TeamSTEPPES details to two of my colleagues (systems engineering+ergonomics), one of whom (Murray Sinclair) developed the 'PEAT' team performance model.

PS. The Salas paper was interesting.

DANIEL EVERETT: Most books on business/organizational culture are American, and do not reflect the cultural constraints and requirements that apply outside the Anglo world. It is still worth reading books such as Schein's 'Organizational Culture and Leadership', although many of his recommendations would not be implementable in high power distance (PDI), high uncertainty avoidance (UAI) cultures. Chapter 8 of Hofstede's 2001 book 'Culture's Consequences' splits 'default' organizational cultures via nationality, based on PDI and UAI (see Exhibit 8.2 on page 377). It is worth visiting some Hofstede websites to read an overview of his cultural framework. If you're willing to plough through two-thousand-odd pages, the two GLOBE books/projects on culture and leadership will give you an insight to cultural differences in management.

PETER RICHERSON: I have a now twice-read, well-commented copy of your book "Not By Genes Alone", and I'm hoping to develop my qualitative and quantitative understanding of gene-culture coevolution (plus a dose of Jaak Panksepp's theories) as soon as I get my PhD out of the way. I'm chasing up the references you provided and will get back to you again.

Many thanks, again, to everyone who has taken the trouble to help me, I'll reply to everyone ASAP. AllanH.

An approach could be the goodwork Project of Project Zero´s Howard Gardner in Harvard University. http://www.old-pz.gse.harvard.edu/Research/GoodWork.htm

One of the goals of this approach es the respectful mind, require capabilities of interact whit differents cultures.

PETER RICHERSON: I looked at a couple of 'social identity theory' papers, one of which discussed project team cohesion, and it seemed that 'social identity' overlapped greatly with culture. In particular, the 'shared social identity' appeared almost identical to the 'hybrid culture' that culturally-sensitive managers might wish to encourage in a multicultural team; in this (hybrid culture) instance, 'multicultural' could refer to national, occupational and/or organizational cultures.

DAVID CROSS: Following your link, I have looked at Yrjo Engestrom's website. The material, in particular that on categorization, is certainly relevant to the larger issues associated with culture. However, with regard to my current (more focused) problem, I am faced with de facto (default) team cultural traits that my tool must ascertain (the easy bit) and relate to task performance factors (the hard bit), in order to obtain some measure relating to potential team performance.

WILLIAM SCANU: I looked at the papers, and the DeSchon paper was particularly interesting. The participants described in this paper (about individual vs. team goals) were all students, of whom 77% were Caucasian, so there are question marks over the international validity of the results. Collectivist team members (Asians, South Americans) tend to have different attitudes to teams compared to individualist team members (Anglos, Western Europeans), e.g. in terms of the basis for co-operation, means of feedback, rewards, and even the basis for measuring team success. I found Dierdorff's paper on psychological collectivism somewhat confusing as this does not appear directly to relate to cultural collectivism, and it raises the question as to whether Dierdorff and others are trying to account for culture by alternative mechanisms.

JOHN COOK: I've had a read through your draft paper on memeplexes. I had (a long time ago) read Richard Dawkin's book, and also (more recently) Distin's book, and so was very interested in your expansion on the meme theme. Coincidentally, another contributor to my question, Peter Richerson, has written (with Robert Boyd) a book on gene/culture co-evolution; this considers, among other things, biased transmission, adaptive and maladaptive (cultural) evolution. There is clearly some common ground between you.

You mention how social and cultural dynamics might show how individuals react and implement policies in a given organisational or national culture (e.g. the high ego individualistic person manipulating processes and procedures). My culture tool would limit itself to the (national) cultural aspects, including rule-following behaviors (or lack of them).

PATRICK LOW: Empathy tends to differ across cultures, for example highly collectivistic cultures differentiate strongly between in-groups and out-groups, in rare cases refusing to recognize out-groups as human; however, I would be committing academic suicide to include empathy as a desired property for a task (e.g. in nursing), and then to differentiate between cultures on that basis. In any case I'm not suggesting that all individualists are empathetic to all human groups ... think of the holocaust. It has been suggested that a significant proportion of directors of major international companies are psychopaths, able to turn their 'empathy switch' off when it suits them (think bankers); there also disputed claims that autistic individuals lack empathy.

Overall, I think that I would be unwise to use my (culture) tool to differentiate between CULTURES on the basis of empathy, whereas, it would be reasonable to build a tool to differentiate between PERSONALITY types (e.g. as in the Big Five model) on the basis of empathy.

PABLO Álvarez-Pérez: At present the majority of my work is associated with single culture teams rather than multicultural teams, so intercultural sensitivity at a direct person-to-person communication level is not a key priority. However, sensitivity to (awareness of) cultural differences is extremely important when designing complex systems and processes for users in other countries, and when making decisions with regard to locating and supporting various forms of innovation.

IVAN VIVANCO BENDEZU: Following your suggestion I have looked at the material on the Goodwork Project. From what I have read, this is about encouraging positive change in people, in the work they do, their environments, etc.

My work, however, is about estimating AS-IS culture and its effects on performance - the users of my tools are not in a position to change culture or attitudes. For example, a complex systems design group will not know who will operate its system, only that the operators are (say) Taiwanese, South Koreans or Brazilians of a certain level of educational attainment. Alternatively, when a company is considering outsourcing some development work, my tool can highlight typical culture-related issues that could affect performance in potential target countries. This most certainly does NOT imply that all Indians or all British react (culturally) in certain ways, only that there is a national tendency to act in these ways. For example, a French R&D unit functions differently to a German R&D unit; target setting and monitoring must be differently implemented in each country.

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed, I'm exhausted from all the reading!

ALLAN HODGSON.

Hi Alan thank you for your thoughtful response. (I used to live down the road in Woodhouse Eaves), That aside I am currently working with teams on team and cultural dynamics in South Africa, Chile and the Philippines. I use Action Research as being a pragmatic approach when working with organisations. I use several steps - a questionnaire that is organizationally neutral to find out about the self. This covers the coping mechanisms (some might call value systems) which are embedded by some genetics and the life conditions as we move through life.

Also included is analogue digital thinking and introvert extrovert plus 8 conditions of change. (a lot of team diversity is often overlooked because of not understanding introverts) Then I might do interviews which are then analysed for espoused coping mechanisms. This then gives a gap between what is espoused and what is hidden. Other steps might add in other models to give a form of triangulation. Of course it is important to include ones own biases and filters.

My hypothesis is that culture needs to built up form the indivdual outwards rather than as an outsider looking in. This means that you can aggravate the individual to form a group view of the 'hidden' culture. So in leadership you can see the gap between the leader and the individual as well as the team. This can also be scaled up to the country.

To give you some idea how this effects thing like communications and learning styles. The attached is an analysis of a case study.

Allan: I think of social identity as a specific part of culture. My colleagues and I have done a little work on the evolution of symbolic markers of groups. We had ethnic groups in mind, but humans form symbolic markers of groups on a wide variety of scales, for example patronyms to demarcate extended families and flags to symbolize nations. These things evolve in our models to guide individuals away from imitating the wrong people. But they also become units to which people subjectively find meaningful and which elicit cooperation. The SIT work suggests that our social psychology is evolved to live in such groups, perhaps partly genetically via gene-culture coevolution. Below are links to some papers where we lay out these ideas. Sorry to suggest more papers at such a juncture!

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/Tribal%20social%20instincts%20cliodynamics.pdf

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Richerson/EthnicMarkers%2022.pdf

JOHN COOK: As in many situations, I think that there is a need for building individual outwards and (ethnic) group inwards IF the information is available - which it isn't for me in my current project. Some items in your gap model analysis are particularly culturally salient, for example: "Straight talking" is NOT a feature in highly collectivistic cultures - the resulting loss of face is unacceptable to both sides of a communication; "rewards for winners" are unacceptable in Japan, unless these are group winners rather than individual winners; "learning styles" (and learning aims) differ markedly on a cultural basis - it is very difficult to persuade individuals of high uncertainty avoiding cultures to endorse experiential learning (e.g. realistic training exercises) rather than formal learning. Although individuals may vary within a culture, their expectations of behavior probably vary less. The wide range of 'expressed' personalities and managerial behavioral styles that we see in Anglo and North European countries are not present to the same degree in other countries.

Many of the assumptions of Western literature and methodologies on personal needs and team-building are culture-bound. Maslow's SELF-actualization is not a key stage for collectivists; Tuckman's four-stage team development model would likely fail if attempted outside individualistic cultures because 'storming' would be unacceptable, and some of Belbin's team roles would not be workable. Treating others as you would have them treat you can turn out to be catastrophic.

Personality is affected by culture, even at the genetic level. In strongly collectivistic societies, extroverts (who promote their own points of view, rather than those of the group) have been less successful in passing on their genes than have introverts. A 2004 paper by Hofstede & McCrae highlights strong culture/personality correlations, in particular a zero-order correlation of 0.64 between individualism and extrovertism. Starting from the outside and working inwards can help the investigator by encouraging him/her to adjust his/her starting assumptions. I am certainly not suggesting that traits at the national culture level are indelibly stamped on every member of that culture, just that they play a strong part in such members' expectations of behavior in others; Hofstede warns of the 'ecological fallacy' of assuming national traits to apply at the level of the individual.

In the UK, the non-ethnic-British population has doubled over recent years and multicultural work situations are now the norm in most cities. So your gap model (if applied here) will be coping with wider variances among work team members.

As I have stated previously, I have to work with national culture and little else because, in the situations that my culture tool will be used, the operators for a given system will not have been selected when the system is designed.

PS. Woodhouse Eaves is still pretty nice. I occasionally go to the Wheatsheaf or Curzon's Arms for a pint or Sunday lunch.

PETER RICHERSON: Social identity makes much more sense as a specific aspect of culture. It should be possible to draw at least some form of interconnected box diagram to reflect on how it sits within the larger cultural framework.

I've read both papers. The evolution of (subconscious?) norms and institutions, the imitation of successful others and the cueing of behavior based on markers makes (pre)historic sense, but also implies that current-day control of media, fashion, news (including the 'politically-correct' presentation of success), etc. by a small number of self-centred psychopathic leaders has become a real threat to norms and institutions. Mainstream UK news sources, for example are now far more constrained in the views they presents, than was the case in Victorian times; only the Web provides a degree of balance ... for those who actively look.

When I get my dratted PhD out of the way (now in the late throes), I aim to spend much more time looking at these models of cultural selection and transmission.

AllanH.

Hi Alan Thank you - I do a lot of work in Asian cultures and because we are measuring 'hidden' as opposed to espoused then the Gravesian model seems to hold true. The basic coping mechanisms that Graves' research uncovered has been used and tested in many cultures, proving useful. Graves was a friend of Maslow and persuaded him that his model did not stop at self-actualization and one could go up in complexity as well as done, dependent on life conditions. Graves showed that there was a relationship between the coping mechanism (he showed 8 but the brain has the capacity for 18) and life conditions. Each coping mechanism carries with it its own learning styles, communications and so on - we are a mixture and activate those which are suitable for our survival in our given life conditions.

I have an interesting potential project in South America where they want to survey the whole population - using a sub set - when they get funding. If you want face to face discussion I can put you in contact with my UK colleague who lives not too far away.

John Cook - I've just been reminded by my supervisor to stick to the task of getting my thesis corrections in and not to get diverted so, for now, I shall do that.

Hopefully, I shall be able to return to this aspect of cultural work afterwards. The proposed survey sounds as if it will be a mammoth project.

Good luck

I have uploaded several design by teams workbooks with ideas about a framework that is adaptable and cost-effective than includes what I call the Bowe Scale.

Each teacher becomes a mentor, overseeing each team. Every team and team member develops and uses their own rubrics based on their attitudes toward others in their team and class, and only talents and improvements in attitudes toward working with others and self are "counted." The scale is from one to ten or poor to rich, easy to understand and use at any age level or status level. At the end of every team meeting, each member uses their rubric to "grade" themselves and their team. None of this is like a grade to count against anyone, but rather a tool for self-esteem and self-development, also called mastery orientation. If the teacher/mentor/navigator on each person's voyage of discovery finds a team or member who consistently scores at 5 or below, then intervention is advised. This means of self-assessment is the best way to provide creative flow with inner motivation by freedom and choice more important than assessment by grade. In this way, every person and their culture is valued and recognized for talents instead of weakness. This also allows the teacher to spend more time with those who need her help the most, while other teams move ahead at their own pace in projects chosen by their own inclinations and joy in learning as a lifetime voyage of discovery is assured.

Your question is complex . It is like a Russian Puppet : it contains many internal/implicit questions.

What follows is not a game. It leads to a serious issue – Be patient

Has anyone come across (or developed) a team task/skill taxonomy (or set) that can be used to assess cultural aspects of team performance? A very puzzling question !

This question supposes that many prerequisites have been clarified, and not just this one : . What taxonomy is most appropriate & what for?

Has anyone come across a way to assess cultural aspects of team performance? i.e. What method to assess & what tools to assess those cultural aspects that might be relevant?

Then on the one hand :

Has anyone come across a way to assess team performance? i.e. What does it mean to assess team performance, having in mind its relation with culture…? Or What is the method to assess team performance? or What are the criteria to assess team performance ?

Has anyone come across “team performance”? i.e. What is team performance? Or What do we call “team performance”? What team?

Has anyone come across what a team is or what kind of a team is to be considered?

And on the other hand, for each of the three above questions:

Has anyone come across cultural aspects of team performance? i.e. How does culture interfere with team performance? Both inside & ouside views? How to identify both the relevant cultural “aspects” and their action mechanisms?

And also :

Do these questions address existing teams that are to be observed by an “entomologist”? –i.e. External observer

Do these questions address teams still to be created or further developed? Combined insider’s view (the actors themselves) & External observer’s view

So what? What then?

1 Your definition of Culture :” The term “culture” relates to the values, assumptions, preferences,beliefs, rituals, knowledge, skills, and behaviors that are shared at the level of the social group (or society).”

In other words, all what the individual has absorbed since he was born & converted into his self. Of course, all what we “learn”, we learn it from other people or from direct encounter with earthy reality. So, what we learn is always “cultural”. Scientists enjoy building up classifications : of course, what we learn when we were 6 months old or 5 years old might be more deeply buried inside ourselves than what we “learn “ at 15 or 50 !. But some encounters at 20 or 40 can also be decisive. We are Biological-cultural beings. We are historical beings. What we are here & now is the position on our trajectory or rather our network. We always act in the present. Some civilisations distinguish the “present” & the “imaginary” : the present is what triggers our immediate micro actions ( it involves the current situation & memories of similar situations- e.g. 20 years ago- that are relevant here & now; the imaginary is what is not relevant here & now in the past or the future : it can be an event that occurred yesterday or 10 years ago. In mid-Empire Egyptian, everything happened in the present: future & past were not embedded in the verbal form, but well, whether the action was under way or stopped – terminated, suspended, or not started yet- Past & future were indicated in a subtle way, similar to an interrogation mark

So culture is everything we make use of when facing a new situation. Well, not quite : there are the “productive” things, i.e. the one that belong to the material world, data, information, knowledge, science, technology … : this can be modeled & transformed into prescriptions; we just have to carry them on. But a new situation is also life, movement, changes ; to a large extent they are determined, but not pre-determined. So, what will really happen.=?? We have to rely, not on theory, mathematics or reductionist concepts, but on ourselves, or habits & experience. The ones that seemed to be most effective according to our past & the ones of people who are close to us & whom we trust. And also, on our capacity to find ways & means to survive in case our initial decision is wrong ….

A computer scientist attempted to design an expert system in pneumology. So, he carefully observed the behavior/ criteria of a top-physician. Then in order to make his system more robust, he wanted to combine what he had learned with a new observation : that of another expert physician. Complete failure : why? The first physician was more “aggressive” & the second one more “contemplative”; but each of them knew how to act in case his initial decision led to a failure. Mixing both approaches leads to chaos. MIT developed an expert system for a renal intensive care unit together with the best physicians of the Mass General Hospital. Then, they wanted the expert system be tested in the Mass Gen Hospital ( the “authors”), in a general I C U, & in a post surgical ICU. The system was rejected by everybody !!! the people in the Mass Gen Hosp ( “ we know more than what we told you : we told you what we can describe with our language, our concepts, …. Not our feelings of experienced professionals; in the general ICU : no ! if we apply the advices of the expert system & if something goes wrong , what do we do? We prefer to call a human referent: he will have the expertise to react & will have the “legal” responsibility; the post op unit : if things seem a bit abnormal, we immediately transfer the patient to a top ICU)

2- the definition of performance

I have no experience of aircrafts ! Only of the design of computer / telecom systems to support ICU & Anesthesia teams. Also creating & managing international R/D projects in Europe dealing with the new IT in medicine at large

In our Western world, we design what should be an ideal team, an ideal project, an ideal something, …. and we act to make it pass in the facts. ( actually , we repeat again & again the old myth of the « creation » : God wanted to build the Universe & did it ; we just try to do the same thing – with a lot of success as far as science & technology is concerned) We know that this team/project consists of people and machines. People ,-pilot, driver, physician, patient, sportsman, manager, …. You name them- do not limit themselves to their reason, their knowledge, know how, technical expertise or technical skills: this is their “production” dimension. It can be analyzed, reduced to schemes, to algorithms … The life / living being dimensions as well as the “external” circumstances cannot be modelled. Although we keep striving again & again. Is it more effective to keep trying or use an other approach. My view point). In addition, culture can be observed from two different points

To be practical :

A__you describe bipolar cultural dimensions – actually three of them, for all practical purposes, from Hofstede – Why ? because he is well-known and referred to by many people – full stop ; not because he is the best one – And then, you show that there is clear correlation between them & crisis management.

Why not turn things upside down.

When we had to design automatic systems for ICU’s (Intensive Care Units) we addressed three major topics =

1. The normative : data, information flows, alogorithms, sensors, …. The rôles of the people= what ought to be done

2. The practical : what was really done ( physician have two patient records : the official one; shared with the other professionals, on the computers; & their personal ones : “the patient is lying; he is drunk; he is fooling his family; he is hiding something, …. “ ; similarly, nurse exchange “confidential” notes on the patients, the physicians, whom to trust, …. ) We need to know that in order to make the automatic system more effective – to compensate for the human weaknesses

3. The crises/breakdowns : everything goes wrong = what to do

As we are not Anglo-Saxon, the priority is not the normative ( see the paper of Dawson , Cambridge) but the breakdowns : everything has to be organized from them.

B__Why not start describing/observing what is a catastrophy? What ought to be done? How to organize the automatic system accordingly? How to train the people as if breakdowns were just normal events : no reason to panic. In this respect, the impact of culture is minimized. And instead of checking whether Hofstede or Trompenaars dimensions are relevant and to what extent, just identify the qualities that people & the equipment need most to successfully manage a breakdown.

This being said, individuals are not equal. And some will learn faster than others and be more effective & more efficient.

So, understanding their cultural background is most important – as in dramatic situations, behaviours learned during childhood will be prominent !

BUT WHAT IS CULTURE ?

When I got interested in Culture as an issue worth considering ( +/- 1987-1990), I faced two approaches :

- That of Hofstede, Trompenaars, … = purely descripitive; you smile often, you talk a lot, … OK: you are put in class 1; you want to act on your own … OK, class 2; the past is important for you, class 3…. And so on : you prefer white wine or beer , a contract is just a piece of paper, ….class 4 … Important if you want to leanr a rôle : how to do business with a Japanese, a Chinese or a Frenchman

- That of Charles Hampden-Turner just when he began to work with Fons Trompenaars ( The Seven Cultures of Capitalism; later, he stopped trying to understand …) , Emmanel Todd ( INED, Paris), or to a certain extent, Steve Toulmin, & many others about “time”, also, H Maturana, Montaigne, & people who recently became interested in empathy …. = what are the roots of Culture, what is culture as seen from the inside of the individual; the way he behaves in society – i.e. the view point of Hofstede … - is another story

I have of course chosen the second viewpoint. Culture is what gives more “thickness” to your present. It has to be continuously elaborated. It has to evolve. But this implies that you are fully aware of what you have to “conserve” in order to remain yourselves.

But this an other story.