Horizontal culture. Vertical and horizontal communication. Vertical dimensions of culture

In Russian culture at the beginning of the 20th century, mutually exclusive trends developed. One, democratic, meant the dissemination of a certain “cultural minimum” among the broad masses, the replication of separately selected cultural values. The other, “elite”, was expressed in the development of culture itself, in the creation of new values. These two trends constituted the “horizontal” and “vertical” of Russian culture, which I. V. Kondakov wrote about in detail:

“At some stage, these two trends had no points of contact with each other: they were interpenetrable and independent of each other, they did not enter into polemics with each other and did not seem to notice each other’s presence in culture - they moved Russian culture - each in its direction, which ultimately led to a dramatic rupture, a split of culture into two.”

Among the bright palette of names of artists and thinkers of the Russian cultural renaissance, the most sensitive to the dramatic problem of combination, the unification of culture as a whole, its “horizontal” and “vertical”, I. V. Kondakov singles out the name of a universal man, one of the theorists of symbolism Vyacheslav Ivanovich Ivanov (1866-1949).

“It would not be an exaggeration to say,” notes Igor Vadimovich, “that at these moments Ivanov’s universal genius broke through to comprehend the essential depths of the world and Russian Spirit, identifying and forming extremely generalized patterns of development of domestic and world culture in the 20th century, realizing the tasks and meaning of art in tragic trials of wars, revolutions and totalitarian regimes that shook the “fierce century,” pointing to the place and role of a cultural figure who understands the extent of his responsibility for the world he creates, before past and future generations.”

“Horizontal” of culture for Vyach. Ivanov is “pure art,” aestheticism, which he outlines in an excursion about sect and dogma, pointing out the isolation of art from the roots of life “and its deep heart makes itself felt in eras of decline, in eras of superficial aestheticism.” The only subject of all art, according to Vyacheslav Ivanov, is Man, “but not the benefit of man, but his secret... man, taken vertically, in his free growth deep and high.”

The Russian symbolist defines the word “man” with capital letters, emphasizing the content of all art, and pointing to religion, which always fits into great and true art, “for God is on the vertical of Man.” Ivanov does not completely deny the horizontal “dimension” in life and art, but he anticipates the inevitability of an acute, dramatic struggle for true art.

In the article “Revolution and National Self-Determination” (1917), pointing out the vain pretense and unacceptable despair in saving the fatherland, the Symbolist poet declares: “We, who imagine ourselves at the height of the broadest horizons, must initiate national repentance ... - come to true reason , to be filled with humility and courage, to remember the former loyalty - not to the banners, which have faded more than once and repainted more than once, but to the living homeland and the people - the face, - not the people - the concept ... ". Repentance is the recognition of a fatal underestimation of the historical “vertical”:

«… Are we not the bearers and multipliers of enlightenment and freedom of spirit, who have long been creating in Russia another Russia and teaching the people to love ours and hate the old one with its tradition and historical memory, religion and statehood? Didn’t we erase all the old writings from the people’s soul in order to inscribe our new rules of baseless man-theism on its bare, empty board? This matter was easy for us, because we influenced the barbaric elements of those plains,

We sowed the oblivion of sacred things, and now we stand before the shoots of unconsciousness so deep that the very word “homeland” seems to us a polysemantic symbol that says nothing to the heart, a false name, an empty sound. We have given too high a price to fate for tearing down the gloomy ruins of the old system - and now we are paying for freedom with damage to independence, for the proclaimed social truths - with the impossibility of realizing freedom, for self-affirmation in isolation from the whole - with the disintegration of unity, for false enlightenment - with savagery, for unbelief - powerlessness."

According to the concept of I.V. Kondakov, Russian culture at the turn of the century only revealed its “Renaissance” potential, without ever fully developing it. “Russian cultural renaissance” is just metaphor , but based on theoretical, and not just historical analogies.

The cultural dimensions proposed by J. Hofstede can be used to develop an effective strategy designed to coordinate the activities of people from different countries. After examining survey data on the values ​​shared by IBM employees working in more than 50 countries, Hofstede concluded that the cultural values ​​of these people varied greatly. In many countries difficult situations and the problems arising from values ​​of this kind appear similar, but their perception and understanding and, as a result, the subsequent decisions taken in each state may be particularly specific and significantly different from other responses. Hofstede's model helps a company operate more efficiently when it has to deal with representatives from different countries. In the course of his research, this scientist identified four cultural dimensions that reflect the different values ​​of people:

1. power distancing;
2. individualism/collectivism;
3. masculinity/femininity;
4. avoiding uncertainty.

However, after further taking into account the differences between Western and eastern countries, a fifth dimension was added to the specified set:

1. long term/short term orientation.

Knowledge of the differences characteristic of national cultures helps to better understand the behavioral characteristics of representatives of different countries. Understanding and acknowledging these differences is the first step towards interacting effectively with others in a multicultural environment.

When to use the model

Nowadays, most of us frequently interact on a daily basis with people from other cultures while doing business. This internationalization of life leads to more international clients, partners and suppliers, and may also mean that the people you hire may come from many countries around the world. This trend increases the risk of misunderstanding of cultural characteristics, which can lead to certain business failures. Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions and its assessment of different cultures can, on the one hand, help ease the tensions that arise, and on the other hand, lay the foundation for establishing good relations With potential clients and partners from other countries.

How to use the model

Hofstede's cultural dimensions model does not show how relationships between people should be structured. It only helps to better understand some of their behavior. It uses the following parameters.

Power distance index(power distance index, PDI). It shows the degree of inequality among people that the population of a country considers acceptable. If you compare two marketing managers, an Austrian and a Malay, working in their companies at the same hierarchical level, you can see that the values ​​​​of this index will differ markedly. Compared to an Austrian (who has a low PDI), a Malay manager (who has a high PDI) is unlikely to have any responsibility or significant authority. In a Malay company, power is more centralized.

Individualism(individualism, IDV). This property (like collectivism, which is opposed to it) describes the relationship between an individual and a collective that is characteristic of a given nation. Individualism is more characteristic of societies in which connections between people are free and where everyone is expected to take care of themselves and their loved ones. Collectivism is characteristic of those societies in which people unite into powerful, cohesive groups that last for a long time. Such associations of “insiders” continue to protect their members throughout their lives, in return demanding unquestioning loyalty from them. For example, in American companies, employees are much more self-interested and pay much less attention to the well-being of the entire team than their counterparts in Asian companies.

Masculinity(masculinity, MAS). This is a quality opposite to femininity. These constructs (basic elements of the model) show gender differences. Male cultures emphasize self-confidence, while female cultures emphasize achieving personal goals and nurturing others. For example, in Japan, ambition, competitiveness, and the ability to earn money are valued, but in Sweden they pay more attention to relationships with others and quality of life.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index(uncertainty avoidance index, UAI). This index shows the extent to which culture influences anxiety when people find themselves in ambiguous situations. In cultures whose members strive to avoid uncertainty, they try to minimize the likelihood of such situations occurring, for which purpose, in such countries, relevant laws and regulations are actively adopted and actions are taken to improve safety. In addition, such crops are characterized by long-term employment. In other countries, where people are more willing to take risks and are more likely to experience them, UAI is low.

Long term orientation(long-term orientation, LTO), opposed to short-term orientation. Examples of values ​​associated with a long-term orientation include frugality and perseverance, while values ​​associated with a short-term orientation include respect for tradition, fulfilling social responsibilities, and “saving face.” Asian countries, in particular China, Vietnam and Japan, have high LTO index values, but Western countries, such as Austria, Germany and Norway, have relatively low ones.

What you should definitely do

• Understand that the actions and reactions of people from other countries may be completely different from what you are used to.

What you should never do

• Don't think that cultural differences can necessarily prevent you from communicating effectively with each other; in the end, even two people - citizens of the same country - are not alike.

conclusions

Hofstede's cultural dimensions model is useful for understanding the cultural characteristics that emerge almost immediately when a company begins to operate internationally. However, over the past few decades, differences between cultures have become smaller and therefore less visible, due to their interpenetration. Of course, one can question the rankings of some countries, which are based on whether all cultural groups are represented within the country or not. In any case, rankings on given dimensions may vary depending on the residents of a particular country. Finally, we must take into account that no two people are completely identical, and therefore we must understand why mistakes and misunderstandings still occur in this area.

Opposition " individualism - collectivism"is a powerful method of personality psychology and cultural psychology. Allows you to compare “on the same basis” people belonging to different classes, subcultures, social groups, or to different cultures such as American, German and Chinese.

In any society, as people grow older, they learn to make significant differences between different individuals and groups of people, and to relate these differences to human qualities each other and/or group affiliation. Cultural differences in the meaning of group relations produce the differences we observe in the behavior, thoughts and feelings of people during their interactions in the group of in-groups and out-groups.

The concepts and practices of relationships with others vary greatly across cultures. Therefore, if we interpret the behavior of a person from another culture according to the standards of our culture, this can lead to misunderstandings and misunderstandings. Good intentions can be perceived as bad, and completely innocent behavior can seem threatening or even aggressive.

Based on this experience, on the one hand, it is clear that all people are equal in the sense that they all have a human psyche - there are no “mentally underdeveloped” peoples or “superman”, just as there are no functionally inferior languages. In terms of describing and modeling reality, English, German and even Russian are no better than Efe or Yoruba. On the other hand, different forms public organization, adherence to different ideologies, obviously educates a person in different ways, “invests in him” different systems values, different models of interaction, firstly, between the individual and the collective (I-group), secondly, the individual (as a representative of the collective) and the events and realities of the “big society”, to which this group Same.

The first relation is related to the concepts “ individualism - collectivism"(Whose goals of value are more significant - individuals or groups?). Individualistic cultures encourage and value individuality and uniqueness; hierarchical power and social differences are minimized here, and universal equality is proclaimed. Collectivist cultures place a high value on group interests; individuals are defined more by group membership than by their own qualities. In such a society, hierarchical differentiation and vertical connections are maintained, and the role, status and behavior of a person are determined by his position in the hierarchical structure.

The second gives individualism and collectivism "new dimension"- vertical or horizontal individualism-collectivism.

Vertical (individualism or collectivism) is associated with the deification of the social hierarchy, giving it a self-sufficient, almost sacred character, with the idea that I am a small person and must solve my problems in my community (in an individualistic or collectivist way - this is the next level of choice ), and the problems of the country and the world will be solved by the authorities.

Horizontal(individualism or collectivism) is associated with the idea of ​​​​the fundamental equality of people - if something worries me, I cannot shift it burden of thought and responsibility on someone - even on my favorite party, whose ideology I share, on the parliament and government that I myself chose, and I will think and act myself. Regardless of whether these are events in my environment that concern me personally, affect my interests and the success of the group, or whether these are events on the other side of the Oecumene, which I don’t seem to care about. For simplicity, I am omitting the connection of all people into a systemic whole, both culturally and economically - most people have to prove this, in their ideas there is only “I” and “my hole”, in the sense of my community, nation, country, etc.

In horizontal individualism individuals are autonomous and equal, and the connection between the individual and the group is an area of ​​free choice. People join some associations and remain in them as long as they like it. Since belonging is not an issue here—neither small group membership, nor national affiliation, nor cultural identification are all freely chosen, like books in a library—people here are most concerned with the problems of the social whole, the country and the world. However, I got carried away and am drawing almost an ideal (the communist ideal, by the way, where “the free development of everyone is a condition (and not an obstacle) to the free development of all”). And indeed, communities and subcultures there is very little horizontal individualism on Earth, and countries- not at all.

In vertical individualism individuals are autonomous but not equal. Social hierarchy, national and religious affiliation of “us” and “strangers” are realities here that you cannot change and which must be taken into account almost as well as the law of nature. Despite the fact that in a small group, “among their own,” individuals still treat each other individualistically. Vertical individualism is typical for corporate company- for South Korea with its chaebols, for Mussolini’s Italy and late Francoist Spain, for the top of Greek society.

Societies of England and the USA, which will be discussed in other studies on the parameter “ vertical-horizontal individualism“are somewhere in the middle, Canada is a little closer to the “horizontal” option.

In horizontal collectivism people see themselves as members of an ingroup in which all members are equal. Public interests prevail over personal ones, as befits collectivists, but groupthink with its conformism and cult of loyalty, suppression of the individual by communalism, as is usually the case in traditional society and patriarchal cultures, is not developed. Again, I describe the ideal (and also communist, only achieved from the other side - from the side of equality, not freedom, as horizontal individualism). Examples of such subcultures are literally rare (there are no countries at all), one of the pleasant exceptions is American anarchists and leftists. Plus individuals among workers/students in New Zealand and Indonesian societies that have been studied in this regard.

In vertical collectivism people view themselves as members of ingroups that are characterized by hierarchical and status relationships. In horizontal individualism, people are autonomous and equal. In vertical individualism, they are autonomous, but not equal (kibbutzniks from Israel, peasants of Pakistan, in general people of peasant communities in a traditional society).

Due to the unconditional advantages of a two-dimensional description of personality psychology in the coordinate field “ horizontal collectivism - vertical individualism» (IC) it has been the focus of most cross-cultural research and theorizing on the issue of psychological indicators of culture. Over the years, research has focused on its definition, attributes, geographic distribution on the planet, implications for interpersonal and intergroup relations, and applications. And so far no such comparisons have been found in terms of personal characteristics, contrasting representatives of different cultures and different social classes, where the opposition IR would not be the most significant invariant.

Cultural indicators such as IR , are beneficial for theory and research because they can be used to predict and interpret cultural differences without relying on stereotypes, anecdotal knowledge, or impressions. In addition, there is agreement in the conceptual understanding IR among cross-cultural researchers around the world. The most striking differences between people of different cultures on the individualism-collectivism scale are found when comparing employees of multinational corporations like Exxon or British Petroleum. People of the same rank, income level, and status position within the corporation are compared - and the differences on the “individualism - collectivism” scale stand out especially clearly.

Opposition IR introduced for the first time K. Triandis- American Greek, to describe the differences in the personal psychology of members of the Greek community and the “pure” ones WASP ov. The most extensive study of IC differences was carried out by Hofstede: he analyzed data from a questionnaire assessing IR - trends among employees of an international corporation with branches in more than 50 countries. His questionnaire consisted of 126 questions, grouped around four main themes: satisfaction; perception; personal goals and visions; demographic data. However, the measurement method IR , as applied by Hofstede, was not designed to produce results across individuals; rather, the unit of analysis was the country. His study was therefore an ecological rather than an individual cultural analysis. In comparative research it is important to have a measure IR at the individual level, since in a cultural sample we are studying a relatively small number of people, especially since subcultures and social groups also differ along the same parameters IR . By considering the influence of culture at the individual level, we can characterize the psychological culture underlying the sample in our study and examine its influence on other aspects of human behavior.

Countries were ranked according to the extent to which people approve IR -values. The maximum individualism was found for workers from the USA and England, the maximum - from Colombia, Venezuela and Pakistan. But these are corporate employees, clerks and managers. A study of workers and peasants in different countries gives other poles of the continuum, although US citizens are among the leaders on the scale of individualism, the leaders of collectivism are always different - either Sweden, then China and Japan (despite the fact that Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan are much more individualistic than even the Japanese) Israel, Sweden. The same, if not greater differences in IR are found in representatives of different classes, on the one hand, in Indonesia, on the other, in New Zealand. They compared people in the “liberal professions,” students and teachers, clerks and managers, production specialists, craftsmen and workers; in Indonesia they added peasants, in New Zealand farmers.

The result was quite predictable - the top of the social pyramid is prone to individualism, the “bottom” to collectivism, and in both cases it is vertical individualism and collectivism. But the “horizontal” forms of both, associated with the idea of ​​fundamental equality of people, are present only in the middle layers, to a lesser extent at the bottom of the social pyramid (but not among guest workers in Europe). “Down from the average level” is horizontal collectivism, “up” is individualism.

Matsumoto and his colleagues created a meter IR for use at the individual level, which assesses context-specific IR - tendencies in interpersonal situations. Their Interpersonal Assessment Questionnaire IR (ICIAI), includes 25 items based on previous work on IR , which was done by Triandis and his colleagues, Hu, and Schwartz and Bilsky.

Items are described in terms of general values ​​(e.g., obedience to authority, social responsibility, sacrifice, loyalty) rather than using specific statements tied to single actions. Universal values ​​such as love and security are not included due to Schwartz's assertion that these "mature" values ​​are shared by both individualists and collectivists. Twenty-five items are presented in relation to four social interaction groups: 1) family, 2) close friends, 3) colleagues, and 4) strangers. These four groups were selected based on their collective differences and the assumption that they would maximize context-specific differences across a captureable range of contexts. All of these items were scored twice, first in terms of shared values ​​as guidelines for each person's behavior and then in terms of the frequency of actual behavior.

Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asay, and Lucca suggest that cultural differences in IC are associated with differences in self-ingroup versus self-outgroup relationships. Individualistic cultures tend to have more ingroups. Because individuals have access to multiple ingroups, their members are not strongly attached to any one ingroup. Representatives of these cultures, as a rule, come from groups that place too much demands on them. high requirements, and their relationships within their groups are marked by high levels of independence or aloofness. In collectivist cultures, which are much more dependent on the effective functioning of groups, a member's loyalty to the ingroup is higher. Collectivists maintain stable relationships with their ingroups, no matter the cost, and demonstrate a high level of independence with representatives of their ingroups.

However, most researchers from the USA persistently use a one-dimensional model IR instead of a more adequate scheme for a two-dimensional description of the influence of society and the social environment on the formation of personality (separately, the “big society”, and its structure, which determines the “principle of assembly” of society from small groups, communities, subcultures, separately - the small group of each individual person).

This primitivizes and simplifies the picture of the phenomenon, and in many ways makes scientific conclusions ideological. Moreover, in the USA, individualism is a value, and any value is strengthened by opposing itself to its own opposite in the external environment (that is, collectivism), and the diversity of “collectivism” and “individualism” in this case can be neglected. Most of the population of Sweden, Denmark and Finland, about a third of the population of Israel, for example, are also defined as “individualists”, but “horizontal”, while American individualism is essentially “more vertical”, associated with the unconditional recognition of social hierarchy, as it is built by the results of competition . My German friends call itSocialaufstellung- in the sense of placing everyone in their proper places.

Many studies demonstrate the usefulness IR in explaining cultural differences in behavior. Differences in IC have been used to predict cultural differences in speech expression, perceptions of positive and negative events from the news feed (for example, those that may cause riots), and perceptions of the expression of positive and negative emotions of other people (assessing the risk of positive or negative reactions, including violence). . Specifically, Lee and Bouster's research demonstrated the differential effects of speech rate on perceptions of speaker trustworthiness in individualistic and collectivistic cultures.

It is equally important to be able to evaluate IR -trends in different contexts, not just in different psychological domains. There is no single measure that can capture context-specific trends, in terms of both their conceptual implications and empirical applications. Indeed, as Triandis and colleagues pointed out, IC should vary across different social contexts. People behave differently depending on who they interact with and the situation in which the interaction occurs. A person may have collectivistic tendencies at home and with close friends and individualistic tendencies with strangers or at work, or vice versa. If a culture supports collectivist tendencies within self-ingroup relationships, it is unlikely to do the same in self-outgroup relationships.

In such a case, the meaning of collectivism, as defined by the in-group-out-group distinction, would run counter to the fundamental definition of collectivism. This look at IR suggests there is great value in developing context-specific indicators for IR than single indicators that are not suitable for different contexts. This look at IR also suggests that IR - trends at the individual level should be understood as profiles IR -trends across different contexts, rather than as single indicators that summarize globally IR -trends.

D. Matsumoto (ed.), Psychology of culture. SPb., Peter. 2003.

Culture is a multifaceted phenomenon.“As such”, “in general” it does not exist. There are her Various types and shapes. With some reservations, as we have seen, all culture can be divided into material and spiritual. But this classification cannot be limited. Firstly, with this approach the historical-genetic aspect of cultural development is lost; secondly, it lacks its important ethno-civilizational cross-section; thirdly, different levels of culture within the same society are not recorded. With a differentiated approach to culture, we can distinguish:

1) primitive culture, the culture of antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the New Age, modernity, postmodernity;

2) the culture of the West and the East, the North and the South; various national cultures;

3) universal forms of spiritual culture (they are sometimes called forms of social consciousness), which include morality, law, politics, religion, mythology, philosophy, science;

4) vertical (elite, folk, mass) and horizontal levels of culture (subculture, marginal and counterculture).

Vertical dimensions of culture:

· elite culture carries out the professional production of new cultural values, which are intended to become canonical. It is distinguished by its closedness and esotericism, intended only for initiates;

· folk culture is distinguished by ethnic tradition, simplicity and accessibility, and an expression of the mentality of the people;

· Mass culture focused not on creativity, but on consumption, it is adapted to the transitory standards and tastes of the average consumer, characterized by naivety and uncomplicated plots, and often by ordinary primitivism; Unlike folk culture, which is “transtemporal”, stable, mass culture is dynamic and susceptible to fashion.

Horizontal dimensions of culture:

· subculture is a local, holistic formation within the dominant culture, which is distinguished by its own value orientations, language, customs, and mores. Its occurrence is due to the differentiation and specialization of the population;

· marginal, border culture. It is associated with deviant forms of behavior and thinking, the causes of which are associated with rootedness in the past, rejection of the present, or a pronounced focus on the future;

· counterculture is the most radical manifestation of a marginal culture that is in open conflict with the official culture and claims to replace it as a new cultural canon.

Various shapes, types, levels of cultural formations are not isolated from each other. In their systematicity, they form a single cultural space. Interaction and productive dialogue between cultures contributes to their rapprochement, mutual enrichment and development. Any cultural innovation acquires the status of a significant event in the sociocultural environment as a result of its conceptual design at the level elite culture. Over time, the “cultural current” from the “upper floors” of culture reaches its mass foundations. In turn, much of what originated in the depths of mass consciousness becomes the object of serious spiritual and conceptual understanding. This relieves the tension between the “elite center” and the “rebellious outskirts.”

The mutual penetration of different cultures occurs not only along the “level vertical”, but also along the “ethno-civilizational horizontal”. In the modern world, the meeting, interaction and interpenetration of civilizations become integral components of the cultural and historical process. In such conditions, it is impossible to preserve pure civilizational formations with their original ethnic and sociocultural isolation. These processes are called the globalization of sociocultural space. This is a profound transformation of the heterogeneous world social and cultural space into a single global system. Information flows of ideas, values ​​and their carriers, capital, standards of behavior and fashion move and interact freely in it. As a result, there is a modification of the worldview, activity social institutions, communities, individuals, social mechanisms of their interaction.

In the course of the development of globalization processes, the problem of preserving the sociocultural identification of each ethnic group, and within its framework, of each person, arises. The spread and planting of a certain version of culture in various regions of the world faces increasing sociocultural resistance from national and regional cultural elites. An example is the opposition of developing countries in Asia and Africa to the Westernization of their national cultures and the imposition of Western patterns of thinking and behavior.

The globalizing world is significantly changing the traditional system of cultural communication. The modern communication space seems to break the boundaries between different ethno-civilizational cultures and creates the preconditions for the emergence of a new type of cultural unity. The diversity of local cultures is absorbed into an integrative superculture. The rate of destruction of established local values ​​is rapidly increasing. The proportion between high and low cultures is also disrupted. Grassroots culture becomes massive both in the number of subjects involved in it and in the simplification of the product consumed. A typical manifestation of the new global communication space is the so-called. pop culture At its core, it is devoid of ethnic, local and cultural basis. This is the global heritage of modern technogenic society. Moreover, the best examples of elite culture (both past and present) often cannot withstand the pressure of pop culture, turning into an object of simplified, primitive consumption. A necessary condition for the dialogue of cultures, both at the local and international levels, is tolerance, mutual tolerance, respectful attitude of representatives of different cultures towards each other.

Among the many classifications of business culture, one can particularly highlight its division into horizontal and vertical.

Vertical business culture is based on the interaction of participants in the work process within the hierarchical vertical of power and is characteristic of organizations of a traditional form of management. Communications are carried out by a directive method from top to bottom.

Main characteristics:

• centralization of management;
• strict adherence to management orders;
• low level of self-organization;
• initiative is punishable;
• the restrictive role of internal rules and charters;
• reduction of power distance.

Horizontal culture characterized by coordinated interaction between participants in the business process. The priority is to follow corporate rules rather than management instructions. In its turn, the main task manager - the formation of these rules and the creation of conditions for effective communication and interaction between participants in the business process.

Main characteristics:

• effective communication between participants in the business process;
• a developed system of corporate norms, rules and procedures;
• high level of self-organization;
• initiative is encouraged;
• minimal management intervention in the production process.

Vertical and horizontal cultures in business and management

An organization's commitment to a horizontal or vertical business culture influences the formation of corporate values.

In a horizontal culture, employees have great opportunities for self-realization in the process of business life. In this regard, the motivation of employees, the level of self-organization and responsibility when making decisions increases. Emphasis is placed on individual development personality that, while maintaining high level loyalty to the organization, creates great opportunities for beneficial interaction between the employee and the company. Great emphasis is placed on delegation of authority and responsibility. Communication between team members is conducted on equal terms, taking into account the interests and opinions of each participant. Conflicts are resolved through discussion and compromise.

A vertical business culture is based on collectivism and does not encourage individual initiative. Opportunities for self-realization are largely limited. The administrative apparatus is numerous, but the power distance can be reduced at the discretion of management. In this regard, problems of shifting responsibility often arise.

Intangible methods of motivation in a vertical culture often do not bring significant results. Self-realization of employees is usually carried out beyond working hours and the workplace. One of the advantages can be noted: for the organization - unity of goal setting and high speed making organizational decisions; for workers - stability and social guarantees.

Vertical and horizontal culture in its pure form is rare. More typical for Russian organizations vertical culture, elements of horizontal culture are increasingly being introduced corporate culture, increasing employees’ opportunities for self-realization within their profession, increasing social responsibility business and making it more attractive to young promising professionals.

home » Loans » Horizontal culture. Vertical and horizontal communication. Vertical dimensions of culture