This post is part of a series that has (hopefully) highlighted the importance of understanding culture and its role in the quest to build and sustain resilience.
Today’s post explores the school of thought known as Cultural Theory of Risk – or just Cultural Theory (CT). This theory is mainly derived from the work of Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky. The regular readers of this blog will have seen the work of these two referenced in earlier posts.
It may come as a surprise to some to think that risk is socially constructed rather than based on ‘hard’ facts. But hopefully you will come to understand that ‘facts’, or more importantly the meaning you attach to them, are a result of your cultural biases.
The picture on the right (from People and Place) is a specific adaptation of the ‘Grid and Group’ analysis that pre-dated CT and on which much of the later CT work is based. ‘Grid and Group’ was originally proposed by Douglas. (I have also talked about the seperate work of Wildavsky here).
Dame Mary Douglas, a British anthropologists and academic, developed and refined the model in several books – with the basics of the model being adapted and refined as the work progressed.
- Originally outlined in her book Natural Symbols (1970)
- Revisited in the 2nd Edition of this book (1973) – and again with some reversion to elements of the original in 1982 edition.
- Cultural Bias (1978)
- Risk and Culture (1982) co-authored with Wildavsky
As a result of the collaboration with Wildavsky the model developed into a tool to explore the relations between social organisation, social control and culture. It is in this context that it can be seen as having a clear role in addressing risk and resilience.
If you want to explore more detailed history of the development of Grid and Group into CT – then I would direct you to the transcript of this lecture by Douglas on the History of Grid and Group Cultural Theory.
A simple explanation of the model
Two dimensions are used, giving a 4 quadrant result which is common to many management models. The dimensions are called Group and Grid.
- Group is a measure of the extent to which people are controlled by the group they belong to
- specific roles assigned to the person, behaviour governed by positional rules, etc
- Grid represents a measure of structure, it could also be seen as indicating the amount of control that members of the culture will accepts.
- The dimensions are best understood in terms of Strong/Weak tendencies rather than at incremental steps along the dimensions.
- This is perhaps best illustrated by comparing two of the diametrically opposed cultures in the picture above
- In the upper right quadrant (Strong Grid, Strong Group) is the area characterised by Hierarchy, Bureaucracy and Positional power.
- In the lower left (Weak Grid, Weak Group) is the rugged individualist.
- CT recognises that several/all cultural perspectives are likely to exist in any community/organisation
- each group also tends to define itself in opposition or contrast to other groups
- the central theme of CT is therefore around irreconcilable conflict
It is rather timely to be talking about CT this week, as one of the primary areas of analysis where this theory was originally researched and applied (in the 1960’s and 1970’s) related to the risks associated with nuclear power. It is the arena of these major public policy debates that the concept of irreconcilable differences can be clearly seen.
This has been characterised by some as the Dialogue of the Deaf. No facts will change the opinions, the ‘rugged individual’ who says that all will be well if they are allowed to make profit and free to decide, the ‘Bureaucrat’ who says that safety comes from following rules (and the creation of more rules to ensure safety) and the ‘Egalitarian’ (also known as ‘Holy Man’) who warns of the dangers of the action. Each party is is speaking from a different cultural platform – as a result they may dismiss out of hand the evidence provided by the other cultures.
These cultures are competing for members, prestige/power and resources. The key message for building and sustaining resilience is to understand the core conflict of the various institutional forms rather than simply address the conflicting opinions.
I am sure many have seen these debates play out in the organisational context. Often they may be characterised as the Sales/Marketing vs Finance/Accounting debate, or the Profit-centre growth initiative vs Compliance/Risk debate.
Key messages to think about and apply to your programs
- Resilience has many different meanings, to the many different people who are part of this dialog.
- There is no right and wrong meanings, just different cultural perspectives.
- Understand the cultural perspective that is informing other people’s opinions, rather than attempt to refute them using your own dominant cultural perspective.
- The various cultural perspectives are likely to exist in all organisations, perhaps one will be more dominant than the others.
- Similarly, no one cultural perspective is either right or worng, we need to learn how to apply the appropriate perspective to the task at hand.
- Get the appropriate actions/responsibilities assigned where they best fit
- The culture of the rugged individual may not be appropriate for Emergency Management (especially for a role of Fire Warden and Evacuation Marshals) – “every man for himself” is not the best philosophy here!
- Agility is an important attribute of a resilient entity – but do not expect this to be built, or embraced, by a Hierarchist/Bureaucrat culture.
- Strong Group cultures will set tight boundaries around their entity, putting a limitation on their perspective of the importance of the total value chain for resilience.
- Conversely Weak Group (lack of collective association and cohesion) would be a liability to a Crisis Management Team.
- Risk mitigations are also the subject of cultural bias
I will explore how this model has been applied to the concept of wicked problems in a subsequent post.
Have you seen the impact of the clash of cultures in your organisation?
How could you adapt the ideas of Cultural Theory to your resilience efforts?
Leave a Reply