Week 10 - Organizational Culture & Penn State

As news continues to break regarding the Penn State sex abuse scandal and the repercussions it will have for the university and for other universities, one key element relevant to this week's readings on organizational culture emerged. Former FBI director Louis Freeh, tasked with completing a thorough investigation into the university and how it continually permitted former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, cited in his report a "culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community" (McCoy, 2012).

This emphasis on the university's culture as a determining factor in what happened in Happy Valley made me wonder how the culture could be dimensionalized using the Hofstede model from this week's readings; where does the university fall pertaining to power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity and long term versus short term orientation? While this is only a cursory look into the culture surrounding this situation, certain dimensions of the Hofstede model have very clear results.

First, Penn State's culture, at least pertaining to this case, could very easily be described as having large power distance. With qualities such as "older people are both respected and feared" (Hofstede, 2009, p. 4), in this case Joe Paterno," "subordinates expect to be told what to do" (p. 5), "autocratic" (p.5) and being similar to a religion with a hierarchy of priests (p. 5). When it comes to corruption, though, the signal is rather mixed. Small power distance societies have "rare" corruption and "scandals end political careers" (p. 5), but large power distance societies have scandals which are "covered up" (p. 5). Both of these are true for Penn State. This scandal was rare, it did end the careers of many in the Penn State administration, including the late coach Paterno and university president Graham Spanier, but it was also extensively covered up.

It is more difficult to say whether Penn State is a weak uncertainty avoidance culture or a strong one - perhaps my fellow students can weigh in. I would likely place the culture in the weak uncertainty avoidance category, as I have observed the culture surrounding Penn State football to be a buoyant force in many lives, which could certainly help the "higher scores on subjective health and well-being" (Hofstede, p. 5) and the "ease" and "lower stress" cited by Hofstede (p. 5)

Penn State would certainly fall into the collectivism dimension outlined by Hofstede. Between the loyalty, "We"-consciousness ingrained in the "We Are Penn State" mantra, classification of in-group and outgroup (Paterno et al. and anyone outside the circle), and the concept that people are integrated into the society from birth (p. 6) can clearly define Penn State on the collectivist side of the continuum. However, what most clearly defined Penn State as collectivist rather than individualist in this case came from Freeh's report, when a janitor who witnessed Sandusky's acts said that trying to report him would be like "going against the President of the United States" (McCoy, 2012) - a concept in direct contrast of Hofstede's individualist criterion of "speaking one's mind is healthy" (p. 6).

In this scenario, Penn State would fall on the masculinity side of the fourth dimension in Hofstede's model. With elements like "admiration for the strong" (i.e. those who win football games and national championships), "few women in elected political positions" (in this case, appointed university leadership) and "boys don't [cry]" (taken here to be show emotion, even in these circumstances), the university culture tips the scales toward masculinity (p. 7).

When it comes to short-term orientation versus long-term orientation, there is a mix, but generally I would place Penn State on the short-term orientation side of the coin. Hofstede cites "immediate need gratifaction expected" (p. 7), which I would equate with winning this week's football game and making a run for this year's national championship, and "family life guided by imperatives," which I would equate similarly. In the argument for long-term gratification, one quality Hofstede identifies is "what is good and evil depends on the circumstances" (p. 8). This was clearly true to those in power at Penn State, including Spanier, who banned a sports agent who purchased $400 of clothing for a player prior to the 1997 Citrus Bowl from the campus and said he would not tolerate someone tarnishing the integrity of the university (McCoy, 2012), but permitted Sandusky to continue to be involved with the university and its football program. However, one criterion for short-term orientation puts Penn State clearly in this category: "traditions are sacrosanct" (Hofstede, 2009, p. 8). Both media reports and the Freeh report cite this emphasis on "the Penn State way" as a defining characteristic of both the university's culture and what caused the situation in which the university currently finds itself.

As a native Pennsylvanian, this scandal has deeply saddened me. I have known many individuals associated with Penn State and its athletics program through my life. They are my neighbors, my teachers, my friends and members of my family. I only hope that now that this hidden history has been brought to light, a proud community can return to its true purpose - education - and other university communities can learn a lesson - not only through whatever punishment Penn State faces, but through studies and academic determinations - and ensure no young person ever suffers the same way far too many did at Penn State.

References

Hofstede, G. (2009). Dimensionalizing culture: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2. 1-8. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8.

McCoy, C. R. (2012, July 13). Report cites Penn State's 'culture of reverence' for football. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-13/news/32649362_1_freeh-report-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky.