Q. In this article, Kuhn-Schankleman talks about the levels of culture and how they define corporate culture. After having read the three levels and what there place is in the corporate culture, the following question came to mind. I don't really understand how a company can have A culture, for it is clear that the 'basic assumptions' level is an everchanging one. And because this third level explains the other two (1. artefacts and 2. espoused values)..to me it seems different to come up with a clear explanation of the word culture in the sens of corporate life
A. Like I already said, I'm a bit confused on how this third level is the root of the corporate culture. I understand the three definitions/explanations. But by quoting Schein, Kuhn-Schankleman doesn't make it any easier. Schein says (on the third level) "...when we see the essence of a culture...we can see instantly why things work, why people leave and so on" (p.10) This already indicates that things change, all the time. To me it would seem that the basic structure (from the top) about what the company wants, stands for and tries to sell is of more influence on the basic assumptions than the other way around. Maybe I dind't get the explanation of the levels as I thought I did. But I still believe that, following the article's trend, if a corporate business is really built upon (first of all) these basic assumptions than a corporate culture would always be a fluent one. This aspect, however, is never mentioned in the article.
De Mooij (reader)
Q. In what way are the differences between the Japanese and American culture inbedded in their businessess that cover not only their home country but also the other (as named above)?
A. De Mooij is very clear and elaborate about the differences in social structures across the world and it is very recognisable to read it all. However, whil reading it I kept wondering what can be said about for instance brands/companies like Sony or Nikon (to name just two). Japanes brands that are huge in the U.S. which would mean that the Japanese have adopted their cultural set of beliefs to the Americans. And vice versa. De Mooij mentioned that the Japanese are often clever enough to fool Westeners, but I wonder how this works for these mega-corporations. Is there another all-including set of codes that goes for every multicorporation? Is an American based corporation in Japan any different than the same company with American based offices? Also, the same question can be asked with regards to a Japanese corporation. Perhaps De Mooij addresses this in another chapter, but it was just something that came to my mind while reading it.
Nixon (reader)
Somewhere in the article Nixon mentions, first of all, The Birth of a Consumer Country and how the authors described the emergence of a consuming England in the 19th century. This is a very specific description. Later, Rappaport is mentioned by Nixon and here it is a culturally-informed argument which reflects topics as gender and how these could be put into a general model of consumer society or consumption.
Q. How could the concepts of The Birth.. be adjusted to a general model which could reflect any Western civilization?
A. First of all, I found it extremely difficult to work through this article.
But having read the advertising, consumption etc section I wondered how a general model could be implied on different cultural structures in different societies. Given the fact that each Western civilization has had a emergence of commercialisation, the basics might be implied on several societies. Like a Wedgewood manufacturer who, with great advertising skills, beacme a symbol in its own right, in its own homecountry. There might be a general model of these practices that could be found in all civilizations. Rappaport is said to be careful to not put different accounts in a general model. But given the successtory of a Wedgewood manufacterer, I believe this could be possible
McRobbie, from Holloway to Hollywood (Cultural Economy)
Q. Angela McRobbie writes a passionate chapter on how New Labour has managed to increase the age gap on the workfloor and how their talent-driven work atmosphere has completely backfired on them. To come up with a question is difficult, since I completely agree with her. Even so, perhaps she could have been more elaborate on how it COULD/SHOULD/WOULD work (according to her)??
A. It is difficult to sum up a complete list of political changes which would take the employment rate up, but still: it is a fact that more and more jobs are culture related. Why can't more companies or sectors be independent as to fill in the work themselves? I believ that in Britain, too much is influenced by the government. This government has already proven itself to be incapable of actually fullfill the promises they make. People should invest in themselves, companies should invest in their emplyees. Maybe come up with internal work-study programmes in order to strengthen not only themselves but also the employees. It might be not as bad as it is now that work replaces social, as long as it is a process that was experienced with the full awareness of the people who actually have to live this life. Of course money is always a, if not THE, problem, but you got to have ideas don't you?