"Mindset" and "culture"

Two words mindset and culture are similrly used and denotes the same. Here is an article trying to draw evidence from literature to highlight this point.

“Mindset” and “culture” : An instance of concept travelling. : Shelly Jose

In literature on research, especially relating to conceptualization of variables, the phenomena of concept travelling and concept stretching have been well discussed especially by Osigweh(1989). In a nutshell, concept travelling is desirable and stretching is not. Two different terms used with apparently the same meaning are ‘mindset’ and ‘culture’. Assuming the conceptualization of both is the same as will be explicated later however, the differentiation may serve a useful function.

According to Osigweh, “the extension of a concept refers to the class of things to which it applies, or the totality of objects which it identifies. The connotation of that same term refers to the sum total of characteristics or collection of properties that anything must possess to be denoted by the term.”

In the present instance, the argument is that the two terms ‘mindset’ and ‘culture’ are conceptualized in the same manner and refers to the same phenomena. The only reference to some difference is that the term mindset is used in a more social – psychological vein and culture in a more sociological vein. However, this apart, both terms refer to a collective phenomena throwing us back to the argument that both are conceptualized the same way, as the same theoretical phenomena denoted by ‘culture’, a type 3 concept.

Various Conceptualisations of the two terms

Culture is holistic, historically determined, related to things anthropologists study, socially constructed, soft and difficult to change. (p 179 Culture and Organisations, Hofstede). It has been variously described as the collective programming of the mind, software of the mind and a lens all of which distinguishes one group from another.
Both culture and mindset seems to be sharing the above characteristics especially the idea of social construction which is that actors interacting together form, over time, typifications or mental representations of each other's actions, eventually habitualized into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other and then routinized and institutionalized. In the process of this institutionalization, meaning is embedded and institutionalized into individuals and groups - knowledge and people's conception of (and therefore belief regarding) what reality 'is' becomes embedded into the institutional fabric and structure of the group. This process happens with groups of all levels such as organisations and is typified by the term ‘culture’.

Mindset denotes member’s understanding of the nature of reality that confronts them. Mindset is a collective awareness shared by the key internal stakeholders. (Kaiser, 1986). Mindset is the direction of one’s thinking (Mak, 1999). Mindsets denote patterns of sensemaking and behavior that capture the ways in which members frame situations, evaluate the alternatives and then select the responsible behaviours. (Liedtka, 1991)

Further Weick (1993) states that sense making is a process of committed interpretation akin to the organized nature of the perceptual field (Krech and Crutchfield, 1947). Mindset is a predisposition to see the world in a particular way that sets boundaries and provides explanations for why things are the way they are – a filter through which we look at the world. (Rhinesmith, 1992)

It is relevant to note that the idea of collective mind is present in the conceptualization of both culture and mindset. The idea of the common problems that all societies confront, as in the discussion on culture and the nature of reality that confronts people, as in the discussion on mindset are in essence the same. Some (Broekstra, 1996) even attribute that organizations have a mind and can be attributed with consciousness.


Levels of culture


‘Mindset’ – travelled culture
Taking from Osigweh’s idea of concept travelling and stretching, it appears that mindset is travelled culture, yielding flexibility, especially as in article on industry mindsets. (Phillips, 1994.) In the present case, since culture is too strong a word denoting and informing of a relatively close knit group or community, mindset denotes the same meaning which can be applied to similar groups albeit with lesser degree of face to face frequent interaction.

However, it is worth mentioning that when culture is spoken of as in national culture, assumptions of close face to face and frequent interactions of all the members has practical limitations. A notion of oneness and uniqueness however is assumed.

Further as Osigweh points out each meaning of a term under consideration used in varying contexts derives from the part that it plays in the theory. This is a characteristic of a type 3 concept.
In an article especially that of Phillips what has been done in the use of the term ‘mindset’ is extending the breadth of the concept of ‘culture’. The concept is general in the sense that it represents a large class. Therefore the concept of mindset is an extension of the concept of culture to a different setting. This is in line with the argument of Osigweh that the concept may be made extendable to a broader context (here industry) without however stretching the meaning which would be fallacious and distorting. Phillips mentions that in the article the two terms are used interchangeably.

The presence of a correlation between industry and organizational culture as in Chatman and Jehn, 1994, would invite recognition of an industry level culture. Culture influenced by industry characteristics at the level of industry would qualify as industry culture/mindset.
Further the presence of an industry level of culture is identified but not much studied or developed. Hofstede placed an industry culture between the occupational and the organizational levels as industry is characterized by distinct occupations and distinct organizations. (p 414, Culture’s Consequences). Gordon (1991) identifies the industry level of culture. And Spender (1989) identifies industry recipes.

‘Mindset’ and ‘mind-set’

A content analysis of Hofstede’s discussion on culture would throw insights into the use of the term ‘mindset’ as distinct from ‘mind-set’. The use of the word denoting that of an individual as distinct from a more collective one as in culture is denoted using a hyphen ‘mind-set, whereas the one denoting a collective idea is referred to as ‘mindset’.
In exploring his findings about different national cultures, Hofstede brings out several mental models of peoples such as machine, pyramid, family (to denote bureaucratic, hierarchic and clan respectively) as residing in their minds forming what in effect are mindsets paralleling Fisher (1988) using the term “mindset” and Douglas (1996) to refer to the “thought style”.

The rationale for the use of the term ‘mindset’ seems to be that culture is a strong word involving face to face interactions. In a gradation involving national, industry, occupational and organizational, industry has relatively less face to face interaction. At the industry level, the same or similar assumptions, environmental forces and broad technological categorizations do inform, infuse and influence the actors in the same industry albeit in different organisations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there does not seem to be any difference between the terms culture and mindset as seen from its usage in the organizational theory literature. However mindset may serve a functional utility as when it may be used to denote culture in groups with lesser degree of face to face interactions

References

Articles and Books

Industry mindsets: Exploring the Cultures of Two Macro – Organisational Settings , Margaret E. Phillips, Organisation Sscience, Vol.5, No.3 (Aug., 1994), 384-402
Assessing the Relationship between Industry Characteristics and organistional Culture: How Different Can you be? Chatman and Jehn AMJ, vol 37. No. 3 Jun 1994 522- 553.
Concept fallibility in organizational science, Chimezie A. B. Osigweh, AMR, 1989, Vol 14 No. 4 579-594
Chapter 3 Mindsets and paradigms: The individual and the organization in times of change: Developing strategies for change John Darwin, Phil Johnson, John Mcauley, Pearson Education Ltd., 2002
An explanation of Industry, Culture and Revenue Growth, Edward W. Christensen, George G. Gordon, Organisation Studies 1999, 20/3 397-422

Content analysis

Rererences to ‘mindset’ and ‘mind-set’ in Culture’s Consequences, Hofstede, 1990