Tag: community

Social & Cultural Capital, Part 1: How to Benefit from Each in the Workplace

Posted on by Leave a comment

Your success on the job often relies on the type of capital you possess. 

We’ve been discussing social and cultural capital over the past few weeks, and these two types of capital are what matter at work. 

To review, social capital is all about the strength of relationships and connections within a group, whereas cultural capital is the shared values and goals that bring a group together.

Social capital can help you achieve more or reach objectives more easily at work. 

In this post, we’ll take a closer look at social capital and see how to assess and build upon it.

Assessing Your Social Capital

Maybe you don’t even know where you stand with your social capital.

After all, it’s not exactly something tangible that you can measure.

The following questions might help you identify where you’re at with your social capital:

  • Do I carry influence? What is my reputation like? Do others see me as strong or weak, reliable or flakey, positive or negative? Do they want to work with me?
  • How strong are my relationships within my team and without? Do I build connections with others across departments? Do I network?
  • Do I build strategic and enduring relationships or just transactional ones?
  • Do I have the energy and influence to mobilize resources and colleagues to support and achieve my goals? 
  • Do I keep abreast of important news and developments within my workplace and industry?

Improving your social capital can enhance your job performance, satisfaction, and career prospects. 

To do so, networking with peers and colleagues in your industry, cultivating relationships based on mutual interests and values, and offering help and support to others are paramount to banking more social capital. 

Aggregate Benefits

Not only does social capital improve individual success and potential, but the entire workplace improves.

Successful workplaces cultivate social structures in which everyone benefits.

This happens through social intercourse, empathy, fellowship, compassion, consideration, and most importantly, trust.

If the social structure benefits only a small group within the workplace, the organization’s aggregate benefits from their social capital decrease.

It feeds into a negative company culture, in which trust is lost, along with the sense of community.

When none of these things are there, those in the social structure can’t rely on each other and cooperation and society collapses.

If you look at your workplace and you cannot identify its values, then that’s a problem.

It means you’ll have a hard time personally building social capital there…as will the workplace, itself.

Building your cultural capital, which relates to your knowledge, skills, and understanding of cultural norms and practices, is also important for career success.

We’ll talk more about that next week.

Does Individualism Corrode Social Capital? Find Out Here

Posted on by Leave a comment

Would you require more social capital and cultural capital to succeed in an individualist country? Or less?

Do you think the individualist system or the collectivist system is more conducive to social cohesion?

There is a debate among theorists about whether individualism poses a threat to a society’s cohesion and communal association or whether it aids the development of social solidarity and cooperation. 

Some argue that the growth of individuality, autonomy, and self-sufficiency is essential for a healthy society, while others argue that excessive individualism undermines social ties and leads to a breakdown of community.

This study by Anu Realo and Jüri Allik suggests the opposite is true. 

Let’s take a look.

Individualism-Collectivism & Social Capital

Social capital and individualism-collectivism (IC) are two important constructs that have been studied extensively in the social sciences. 

As we outlined in a previous post, social capital refers to the networks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation among individuals and groups.

We’ve also extensively discussed IC – the degree to which people prioritize their own goals and interests versus those of the group.

Despite the seemingly contradictory nature of individualism and social ties, research on the relationship between social capital and IC suggests that there is a positive association between the two constructs. 

Individualism & Trust

Countries with higher levels of social capital are more individualistic, which suggests that independence and freedom to pursue one’s personal goals are of value to social capital. 

This is because social capital is based on trust, and trust is more likely to form in societies that value individual autonomy and self-determination.

Those societies in which trust is limited to only nuclear family or kinship have lower levels of social capital. 

Social capital is not evenly distributed within societies and can vary depending on the size of social networks and the degree of trust within them.

Social Capital Not at Odds with Individualism

To put it simply, social capital and individualism are not necessarily at odds. 

Instead, promoting social capital through policies that strengthen relationships and trust – such as investments in education, infrastructure, and community development – can help to build stronger communities, even in societies that value individual autonomy.

Prosocial Behavior: Why Do We Give? Why Do We Care?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you donate money to charity? Time and energy to volunteering? 

Are you concerned about social issues, like homelessness, racial discrimination, or gender inequality?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then you’re engaging in prosocial behavior.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be looking at prosocial behavior and culture.

But first, let’s define and understand it.

Origin of the Term, ‘Prosocial Behavior’

The term, ‘prosocial behavior,’ appeared in the ‘70s as an antonym for ‘antisocial behavior.’

It’s defined as demonstrating actions such as cooperation, diplomacy, sharing, helping, feeling empathy, etc.

Basically, prosocial behavior involves caring for other people and your community.

Personal benefits of being a “helper” include boosting one’s mood, reducing stress, and giving your network or community social support.

Reasons for Prosocial Behavior

Aside from the personal benefits of prosocial behaviors, there are other evolutionary and psychological reasons to engage in it. 

  • Reciprocity – Helping others may have evolved from the social norm of reciprocity. When on the receiving end of help, one might feel obliged to help the person in return in their time of need.
  • Socialization – Early child development often includes teachings on kindness, sharing, and helping. These prosocial behaviors may be encouraged as the child grows.
  • Egoism – One might be performatively prosocial, engaging in prosocial behaviors purely to benefit themselves.
  • Survival of the Fittest – Evolution might explain why prosocial behaviors developed. Helping one’s in-group (family, for instance) would ensure survival of your species and/or genetics.

Types of Prosocial Behavior

Researchers have that prosocial behavior can be driven by different motivations.

Here are three distinct types of prosocial behavior:

  • Altruistic – This type of prosocial behavior is not motivated by personal gain. It seeks to help and support others for their sake. Think donating to a cause anonymously.
  • Reactive – This type of prosocial behavior is motivated by individual needs. The individual is acting in response to someone’s specific need. Think supporting a friend when they’re going through a hard time.
  • Proactive – This type of prosocial behavior is motivated by personal gain. The goal of this behavior is to seek status and in-group popularity through “generous” actions. Reciprocity is expected. Think national diplomacy.

With this brief introduction to prosocial behavior, we’ll be discussing how it manifests culturally over the next few weeks in the context of charity and volunteering.

Culture in Crisis, Part I: How Cultural Values Impact Communal Response to Trigger Events

Posted on by Leave a comment

Fight, flight, or freeze: these are three common human responses when one is under threat.

Each individual will respond to crises in a different way.

But does our culture influence how we, as a community, respond?

Think NYC’s response to 9/11 or Japan’s response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

From terrorism to natural disasters to global pandemics, communities and nations often respond in different ways to trigger events, based on their own cultural values.

Let’s take a look at one example.

The Amish

A school shooting occurred in an Amish community on October 2, 2006. Five young girls were killed.

Amish values include forgiveness, living righteously, and hating the sin and not the sinner, and this was reflected in their response to the trigger event. 

As Melinda Rene Miller’s paper, titled “The Human Element: A Study of the Effects of Culture on Crisis Reactions,” notes, revenge is not a part of Amish culture.

In mourning the victims of the tragedy, the community also mourned the shooter and embraced his family. 

They donated money to the killer’s widow and children and attended his funeral.

Sociologist Donald Kraybill who co-authored a book on the tragedy spoke on the power of Amish forgiveness, saying, 

“Several families, Amish families who had buried their own daughters just the day before were in attendance [at the killer’s burial service], and they hugged the widow and hugged other members of the killer’s family.”

Other cultures might respond to this type of crisis with a need for action, through new laws or regulations; a need for revenge or justice, through an investigation and public trial; and/or a plea for monetary donations for the community to recover.

None of these approaches would have lent themselves to the values of Amish culture.

The response of unity and emphasis on religion and humanity’s purpose on earth correlated with their values.

Behavioral and Attitudinal Reactions

As mentioned in the intro, everyone reacts to crises differently. 

Miller’s 2007 study set out to determine if, and to what degree, cultural values impact group response to trigger events.

The paper’s abstract proposes:

“While each individual person within a given community will react to a potential crisis situation in their individual ways, as a whole, their reactions will never vary too greatly, as their behaviors and attitudes are largely based upon their learned cultural values.”

Next week, we’ll delve into the results of this study, surrounding varied outcomes in communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina.