Tag: Company Culture

Attitude & Behavior in the Workplace: How Does Tightness/Looseness of Culture Apply?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you find the overall morale of your work team to be positive or negative?

How do you navigate it?

And have you ever considered whether the tightness/looseness in your company culture or societal culture might impact these attitudes?

In recent weeks, we’ve talked about tightness and looseness in culture and how this can affect innovation.

Today, we’ll be looking at another study examining tightness/looseness in the workplace to see how it can benefit morale, management policies, and behaviors.

The Study

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of perceived cultural tightness at the work unit level on individual-level outcomes, both positive and negative.

This understanding can be used to enhance management policies.

The research delves into the influence of perceived T-L culture at the work unit level on various individual-level factors, including stress, intention to leave, organizational deviance, job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Utilizing cross-sectional data gathered from 417 participants across 57 preexisting work units in diverse Italian organizations, participants were presented with 10 statements that they were asked to agree/disagree with.

These statements include:

  • In my work unit, there are many social norms that must be strictly followed
  • In my work unit, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove
  • In my work unit, there are clear and well-defined rules that must be respected
  • In my work unit, it is not allowed to break the existing norms

The results from multilevel analysis indicate a significant and positive association between perceived cultural tightness at the unit level and individual-level job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Conversely, this perceived tightness is significantly and negatively linked to individual-level stress, intention to leave, and organizational deviance. 

These findings imply that fostering a culture of tightness within organizations can positively shape employee attitudes and behaviors.

Confirming the researchers’ hypotheses, the results revealed that perceived cultural tightness at the unit level exhibited a positive association with job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Conversely, it displayed a negative association with perceived stress, turnover intentions, and organizational deviance.

Interpreting the Results

Based on the research, this study found that fostering a tight culture could be beneficial for leaders to cultivate positive attitudes within work units. 

However, the suitability of a tight culture depends on individual characteristics and cultural diversity within work units, necessitating attention from HR managers and leaders. 

Achieving a “person-group fit,” where the T-L culture aligns with employees’ mindset and individual characteristics, could promote positive attitudes and behaviors.

Interestingly, in loose societies, organizations may witness more positive workplace attitudes within loose culture work units. 

However, the study did not find significant curvilinear effects, suggesting a need for further investigation, especially in creative, design, or high-tech settings.

Future

The study suggests examining creativity at work, especially given prior results on cultural T-L and creativity.

Exploring moderators of the relationship between tight culture and creativity, such as regulatory focus theory, could provide valuable insights. 

Future research should extend the examination of these effects to the organizational level, considering that work unit culture is influenced by the larger organizational and national culture. 

Investigating interactions between the T-L culture of the country and that of the organization or work unit in promoting workplace outcomes is recommended. 

Overall, these findings contribute to a deeper understanding of T-L effects in real working environments.

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.

Business Culture & Social Responsibility: Where Do the Pair Intersect?

Posted on by Leave a comment

What does it mean to be socially responsible as a business?

This blog post will explore where the two intersect.

Although Western cultures are rule-based, they are limited when addressing the global problems of today. And yet, businesses must take on social responsibility in today’s world and be held accountable for their practices, because these practices, in the end, can impact all of us.

Social responsibility is taking hold.

Social Responsibility

What is social responsibility?

In short, it’s when an individual or organization takes it upon themselves to act in a way that benefits society rather than only their reputation or bottom line.

With social responsibility, economic ecosystems – such as environmental efforts, societal welfare, or material development – balance out.

One example of this is when the environment is negatively impacted by an organization’s productivity or processes.

For instance, when Ohio’s Cuyahoga River repeatedly caught fire from an oil slick, which prompted governmental change, including the 1970 formation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

Or the case made famous on the silver screen, in which Erin Brockovich drove a 600+ resident suit against PG&E, after discovering illnesses in the town of Hinkley, CA were linked to high levels of hexavalent chromium found in the drinking water. When she traced the pollution’s source to PG&E, she found that the utility giant was well aware of the pollution and attempted to cover it up.

The lawsuit was settled for $333 million in 1996.

In these cases, an organization’s social responsibility must be put under the microscope.

A community’s health, as well as the biological ecosystems of an area, could potentially be (and have been in the past / continue to be in the present) destroyed.

When a business is indifferent to these impacts on the society it’s meant to serve, not only does the company’s negligence reflect poorly upon their culture, it can literally mean life or death for some.

Active/Passive Social Responsibility

You can also be active or passive in your socially responsible principles and behavior.

One example: shoplifting in a retail environment.

It sometimes happens that retail workers shoplift from the companies they work for. As a retail worker yourself, you might know that your colleagues do it, but keep your mouth shut, though you don’t participate.

This is passive social responsibility.

Active social responsibility is more direct. It might mean advocating for better antitheft procedures, like spot-checking bags before employees head out for the day.

As long as you don’t follow suit when you witness your colleagues crossing that ethical line, you are being socially responsible.

Whether active or passive, that responsibility reflects your values.

Next week, we’ll talk more about a relatively new type of management strategy called corporate social responsibility.

The Employer-Employee Relationship Across Cultures: Concept of Self, In-groups & the Workplace

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you view your relationship with your employer?

Do you see the employer-employee relationship as something of a family link?

Or is the relationship strictly professional and contractual?

The way you view this relationship is conditioned by your society’s concept of the in-group. As with many things, this concept is formed according to where your culture lies upon Hofstede’s cultural dimension spectrum of collectivist vs. individualist.

We are Family

Collectivist cultures view the employer-employee relationship as a moral one, a familial one.

Whether or not the company is the in-group, the company is expected to behave according to the in-group’s rules and values.

As we mentioned in last week’s post, the in-group usurps all.

Strictly Professional

On the other hand, individualist cultures see the professional relationship as a contractual one.

The structure and hierarchy of a company/organization are not expected to follow the rules and values of any in-group the individual employees are a party too. Rather, the employees submit to the structure of their company and their company culture.

Why?

It’s pretty simple: because the company is built for the owners/employers and customers, and it’s in the employees’ personal interest to align themselves with this structure. Otherwise, they’re out of work and their self-realization of upward mobility ceases.

Abstract Relationship vs. Social Fabric

Individualist cultures view employee/employer relationships abstractly.

The relationship is built on a contract. Salary in exchange for work…and, hopefully, some employee satisfaction.

Collectivist cultures view companies/organizations as part of the community’s social fabric.

Members are the vehicles of the company’s purpose and meaning.

The companies, themselves, are often run by a family/clan, which can often lead to family hiring and nepotism. As we mentioned last week, this is acceptable – and even expected – in collectivist cultures.

Benefits to senior managers and individual shareholders are not the end-all, be-all of the organization’s development and success in a collectivist society. Instead, the organization serves the society/clan.

Motivational Theories

This is why Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” Herzberg’s two-factor theory, and other models for human motivation, created by Western researchers, don’t withstand cross-cultural tests.

They do not account for the fact that human needs and human motivation (particularly, in the workplace) differ greatly across cultures, which means the incentives to motivate teams will too.

Concept of Self

These differences are related to the concept of self.

The individualist vs. collectivist perspective of self is, understandably, a topic well researched.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) wrote:

“People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the two. These construals can determine the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion and motivation.”

concept of self

This chart shows an overview of various nations’ concept of self.

The US falls on the individualist end of the scale, while Asian countries fall on the collectivist end. European countries lean toward individualism, while others – like India, Spain, and Russia – are more central, balancing individualist values and ideals with collectivist ones. The Middle East, African countries, Mexico, and Japan are more collectivist-leaning.

While this chart isn’t too surprising, the way self-concept manifests in cultures in the areas of cognition, emotion, and motivation varies.

We’ll talk more of self-concept next week.

No Absolutes

The bottom line is there are absolutely no absolutes when managing and motivating across cultures. Motivational tactics that work in an individualist culture may not work in a collectivist one.

As a Western manager, don’t become the monkey in your workplace. Know that there are no absolutes. Know that, just as individualism is not the only driver of economic success, individualist motivators are not the only possible drivers for your employees.

You must adapt. In collectivist cultures, manage groups instead of individuals.

Directive vs. Supportive Leadership: Which Style Works in Your Culture?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Say, you believe that the success of the team is more important than personal goals, ambition, and achievements.

If that were the case, what type of management style do you think you’d prefer?

Would you want a supportive, inclusive leader offering you relative autonomy? A work environment where everyone can freely voice their opinions and concerns and stand out from the crowd?

Or would you want a directive, authoritarian leader within a company culture where harmony is more important than self-expression?

We’ve talked about how collectivist cultures view the “group” as more important than self. We’ve also discussed that the “group” differs across cultures.

The group one most values often directs its workplace norms and preferences, including what motivational factors are effective and what type of leadership is preferred.

As to the latter, two styles of leadership are applied in varying degrees across cultures: directive and supportive leadership. Let’s take a look at both.

Directive Leadership

What makes a directive leader?

Here are some directive leadership behaviors:

  • Being task-oriented
  • Demonstrating control over subordinates
  • Dominating interactions
  • Personally managing the completion of tasks
  • Supervising closely
  • Pressuring employees to complete targets accurately and efficiently
  • Focusing on time management

With a directive leader, employees are placed in a role of dependency – depending on the leader to direct every aspect of their task, including how and when to move forward. Employees under directive leaders often demonstrate little personal initiative.

A number of studies have shown directive leadership often contributes to lesser satisfaction and team cohesion. Moreover, directive leadership unsurprisingly leads to less open communication.

However, directive leadership can also result in higher productivity.

Supportive Leadership

What makes a supportive leader?

Here are some supportive leadership behaviors:

  • Meeting employee needs/preferences
  • Showing concern for employee welfare, individual/group needs, and conflict within the group
  • Encouraging a supportive work environment
  • Providing positive feedback
  • Fostering team cohesion and openness
  • Inviting employees to be part of the decision-making process
  • Promoting positive morale
  • Facilitating discussions (as opposed to dominating them)

With a supportive leader, employees are provided more autonomy and encouraged to demonstrate personal initiative and to be individuals within a cohesive group dynamic.

Studies have shown supportive environments can empower and promote positive dependency among team members, despite being open to more potential conflict as a result of open communication and individual expression.

In his study on “Rights and Responsibilities of Dissent: Cooperative Conflict,” Dean Tjosvold concludes that:

“…asserting the right to self-expression contributes to establishing a conflict-positive climate in which differences and frustrations can be discussed openly.”

The hard part when managing across cultures is finding that fine line between cooperative conflict and just plain conflict.

Next week, we’ll discuss the hybrid leadership style that combines directive and supportive leadership. Stay tuned.

Marriage for Economic Advantage in Japan & How Saving Face Impacts Job Loss

Posted on by Leave a comment

The norm in the West is that one should marry for love.

But imagine growing up in a culture where economic advantage was given priority.

This is largely the case in Japan.

History Repeats Itself

Prioritizing economic advantage in marriage is not unique to Japan and other Asian countries; in fact, it was once a Western norm, as well – and pretty recently, at that.

People were often coupled in European countries according to class and, thus, economic advantage.

If you’ve ever read a Jane Austen novel, then you know that locking down a wealthy suitor, preferably one with plenty of property, was much more advantageous to a young woman (and her parents) than finding someone she loved.

It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that “love marriages” were more commonly sought.

But Confucius saw it differently. He placed economic advantage above love, and in this, the Japanese agree.

Head of Household

One way in which Japanese society differs from the West is that women are more often the heads of household when it comes to finances.

While Japanese husbands have long been responsible for bringing home the bacon just like everywhere else, women are largely in charge of this bacon.

So, what happens when a man should lose his job in Japan?

Well, this is seen as a huge failure on his part – and a personal one, regardless of whether the firing was only an economical company decision.

Job Loss & Suicide Rates

Whereas in a love marriage, a wife would be expected to support her husband through such a crisis, in Japan, not so.

If a Japanese man loses his job, he also loses his social standing…and he may lose his wife too.

Because of the fact that the man would no longer be fulfilling the primary task in the economic marriage compact – making money – he would not expect support from his wife.

Instead, he might expect to lose honor, lose face, and feel the powerful shame that accompanies that loss. This is one of the reasons that suicide rates in Japan after job loss are incredibly high.

According to National Jobs for All Coalition:

“From 1953 to 2003, each 1 percentage point increase in the cyclical component of the male unemployment rate led to a 5.39 percentage point increase in the cyclical component of the male suicide rate. This effect is 38 times larger for Japan than for the United States.” 

Moreover, Japanese companies are very reluctant to fire staff, because of this societal loss of honor and the resulting shame. Layoffs, in fact, are considered taboo. So, instead of firing employees, companies may demote those who are ineffective but keep them on the payroll.

However, don’t consider this act too merciful; although they refrain from firing ineffective employees, they also try to make the office more uncomfortable for them – think smaller, windowless offices without air-conditioning. In fact, they have places called “boredom rooms,” where they essentially try to drive staff to voluntarily quit.

In this way, Japanese norms and values reverberate throughout their culture, with the need to save face permeating up into the very policies and procedures of company culture.

Next week, we’ll continue our tour through marriage in Asia by exploring the “marriage buyer’s market” in China.

Open Hearts, Open Minds: How Much Should a Foreign Manager Expect to Accept & Adapt to the Culture?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Say, you’re a store manager at a retail company, and you’ve been sent abroad to work out the kinks at your sister store in Tokyo. You’re a fish out of water, a monkey out of his home tree, and your managerial style isn’t gelling too well with that of Japanese culture.

The big question: Do you expect your employees to adapt to you and your culture? Or do you expect to adapt to them?

The Cultural Baobab

If you work at an international company, the company culture is usually fairly uniform the world over…but not entirely.

When you’re sent to manage abroad, you’re still working and living in a foreign culture. Just because these employees work for your company doesn’t mean they’ve fully accepted, adapted, and adopted your culture’s practices or behaviors.

We’ve talked a lot about the cultural baobab and how, by identifying and understand its roots (values) and limbs (social norms), you’ll better understand the culture, as a whole.

The point is that living and working successfully in a foreign culture always starts with one thing:

Accept

Accept your host culture as it is.

Don’t fight it.

Don’t condemn it.

Don’t judge it.

This will make managing in the culture a whole lot easier.

Think about it: as the monkey in their baobab, instead of complaining about the branches as you swing from limb to limb, instead of criticizing the roots that grew this tree and spitting out the seeds from its fruits, you should be curious about it, you should admire it, and you should find a home in it.

Accept that your culture’s tree isn’t the only tree in the world. It’s not the superior baobab. It’s not the center of the universe. Accept that there is more than one type of beauty.

There’s a myriad of ways to live life, to organize a society, and to run a business.

Once you recognize this, you’ll see the beauty in this foreign baobab, from the roots to the canopy.

Integrate

In order to successfully manage in a foreign culture, you must integrate into that culture. If you don’t appreciate the beauty of your host nation’s baobab, your employees and colleagues will know it and integration will be null and void.

Accepting doesn’t mean you have to adapt or adopt everything in your host culture, nor must you idolize it.

Accepting does mean that you must make an effort to seek the good in everything with which you are unfamiliar, instead of immediately condemning it as “bad,” because it is foreign to your own values and way of life.

Now, that’s not to say everything about a foreign culture is easy to accept. We’ll talk about how to deal with adverse reactions to your host culture next week.

Social Power Structures & Business Culture: Where are You in the Pecking Order?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Can you question authority in your company? Are you allowed to talk to your boss…look at him/her directly? If you’re on the low end of the pecking order, is your voice heard?

If you answered ‘yes’ to these questions, you’re probably working in a Western company culture.

If you answered ‘no,’ you’re probably in the East.

We’ve been talking about the differences between individualist cultures and collectivist cultures for the past two weeks. Now, let’s take a peek at what happens in a business, East vs. West.

Social Power Structures

Social power structures are one of the most obvious contrasts between the East and the West.

The East centers around a hierarchical structure. Think of it as a building with no stairs. Only floors. Those in a higher position of power socialize at the top level, and those in a lower position of power socialize at the bottom. There is no crossing between the floors. There are social barriers. And, in fact, one might lose face if they mingled with a lower class.

The West, on the other hand, has an egalitarian structure. There are stairs and elevators in the building, and everyone from CEOs to janitors is welcome to cross between. Conversation is much looser and less formal. Inclusiveness is important. And you could argue that those who are able to talk to everyone on their level with grace, treating all with dignity and respect, would gain face doing so.

Social power structures are deeply ingrained in a culture. In the West, the homeless may be invisible to most, but they have a voice to others. In the East, they are invisible and voiceless to all.

Innovation & Business Culture

Ambition and initiative are also Western values which, if imitated in the East, would not go over so well.

For instance, say you’re a newbie at a company. You’ve got a brilliant new idea that will speed productivity sevenfold. You present it to upper management, without prompt, during a morning meeting.

Would you a) be rewarded, or b) be shunned?

In Western companies, this free-thinking initiative would be viewed positively. Ambition is, more often than not, a valued trait in the West.

In Eastern companies, a newbie trying to crack through the hierarchy would be seen as disobedient and, perhaps, a bit dangerous to upper management. This is due to the top-heavy concentration of power. Those in the lower ranks who try to “prove” themselves are putting a toe out of line, breaking the harmony. And they’d lose face because of it.

Cross-Cultural Environment

If you intend to work in a cross-cultural environment, knowing the values of the culture in which you’ll be working – especially the social power structures and business culture – will improve your chances of success.

Knowing these intricacies of culture will help you not to lose face before you even gain one.

How Cultural Values Inform Communication

Posted on by 1 Comment

You are an individualist. Your goal in life is to succeed on your own. To seek out your fortune, using your own talents, your own mind. Individual achievement is paramount to your self-actualization and identity. You believe you have your own voice. You use it. You speak out, directly and without hesitation.

You are a collectivist. Your goal in life is to succeed as a group. To seek out the fair share for all, utilizing everyone’s talents, with a group mindset. Collective achievement is paramount to the group’s well-being. You believe in group think. You speak when expected to, indirectly and with caution.

There are outliers in any culture but, in general, these are the differences between Eastern and Western communication. And it all comes back to the values that inform our behaviors.

What Drives Western Cultures?

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington

Capitalism and freedom are often the driving factors behind Western cultures. Democracy, free speech, individualism – these values inform the West’s cultural behaviors.

Western communication is direct, clear, and concrete. There’s nothing ambiguous about it; no beating around the bush or mincing of words. The meaning of speech isn’t often lost in a sea of vague undertones or unspoken “understandings.” Nothing is implied or inferred when it comes to business communication. Both parties are taken at their word.

To put it simply, the cards are on the table.

What Drives Eastern Cultures?

“If what one has to say is not better than silence, then one should keep silent.” – Confucius

Collectivism (and in some cases, communism) and harmony are often the driving factors behind Eastern cultures. These values inform the East’s cultural behaviors.

There’s a don’t-rock-the-boat mentality in some Eastern cultures. So, when it comes to communication, they find the straight-shooting of Western cultures ill-mannered.

Nonverbal and indirect communication is favored by many Eastern societies. This is because the group’s entire harmony, as opposed to individualism, is valued.

But this harmony may only play out in words, not necessarily in actions.

For instance, in Chinese culture, a colleague may tell you he’ll have his work in by a certain deadline, but then fail to do so. He may not even have intended to meet this deadline when he claimed he would.

While this might seem to Westerners a form of deceit, it’s more often done to maintain a surface level of harmony than to lie. Others in the culture would understand that their colleagues’ actions wouldn’t necessarily align with their words. This is accepted.

The fact is, the culture knows itself. A direct “no, I can’t get you that by deadline” upsets the balance – an unharmonious response that would make one “lose face.” And so, whether the colleague will keep his word isn’t the issue; the surface harmony is. Therefore, inconsistency is anticipated and accepted by all, so that the relationship may be preserved.

East vs. West Communication

If communication was a body of water, then the Eastern sea would be a glassy surface with plenty of disturbances below, whereas thousands, millions of raindrops would make their mark on the surface of the Western sea, with some waves, and even maybe a hurricane or two.

Either way, when the two seas meet, both sides can be frustrated with the differences in communication styles. Some may even “lose face,” which we’ll talk about next week.

Values: What Are They & How Do They Shape Culture?

Posted on by Leave a comment

You often hear various groups and cultures talk about their “values.”

But what are values, really?

Are they only ideals? How are they put into practice?

Values are practiced ideals; they’re principles or standards to live by. In a culture, they distinguish between what is important or unimportant. What is worth fighting for and what is not. What is good and what is evil and, correspondingly, who is good and who is evil.

Values are a culture’s unwritten rule of law. In fact, sometimes, a culture’s values influence the nation’s written laws.

Swiss Values

Let’s take a look at Swiss values, for example.

According to ediplomat, “The Swiss value cleanliness, honesty, (and) hard work…They value sobriety, thrift, tolerance, punctuality and a sense of responsibility.”

Swiss values also include environmentalism, freedom, orderliness, neutrality, and world peace. We’re also savers and are proud of the material wealth that accompanies economic responsibility.

You can see these values come to life in our culture. In the way we dress, the way we behave, the way we live.

Walk down any street in Geneva, and you’ll notice several things: gorgeous greenery, an absence of litter, Swiss people dressed clean and neat and, yes, plenty of wealth.

You can also see these values in our policies and politics.

The Swiss unadjusted unemployment rate rarely exceeds 4% and dropped to 3% in June of 2017, which is less than the average 4-12% unemployment in other developed countries. This may be partially attributed to our values of hard work and our sense of responsibility.

Being a neutral nation, we’re also not a member state of NATO. We are, however, members of the Partnership for Peace, which cooperates with NATO on crisis-management training and operations, as well as humanitarian missions.

This is how cultural values are made manifest: putting into practice the ideals that are most important to you and your broader culture.

Swiss Values-turned-Laws

You can see Swiss values represented in written law, as well.

Take jaywalking, for example.

In many countries around the world, a slap on the wrist is the most you’ll get for jaywalking. In fact, in most places, you won’t even get that – it’s acceptable to cross the street wherever and whenever you choose.

But, in Switzerland, our values of orderliness, sobriety and our sense of responsibility come into play yet again. Jaywalkers are disturbing the order of things and aren’t taking the risk of potential pedestrian fatality seriously. Therefore, jaywalkers are fined on the spot by police if caught in the act.

This is just one of many written laws and unwritten norms that exemplify our values in Switzerland. Next week, we’ll talk about the difference between individualist and collectivist cultures and where their values diverge.