 For the last 40 years or so, I have been exploring how culture affects behavior. My particular interest is how Indian culture affects organizational behavior. My understanding is that culture is of course, a very significant factor, it is not the only There are many other factors of them immediate environment is a major one. In fact, it is a much more potent stronger factor than culture at least at certain occasions. Indians culture and environment combine and have a cumulative effect. On other time they conflict and when they conflict probably people comply with the pressures from the environment rather than follow their own cultural orientations. Now, in fact, culture and environment jointly determine organizational culture. They create a business milieu so far the work organizations are concerned that wraps the organizational culture and together they determine the behavior. Indians are very sensitive to context, they are very sensitive to organizational cultures and they vary their behavior very sharply depending on the kind of cultures they are responding to. So, the main thesis of my presentation today is how and why Indians vary in their responses to the organizational culture. I have four parts of my presentation. The first part is a conceptual frame in which I will discuss how environment moderates culture and behavior relationship. Then after I will move to describe Indian cultural characteristics and that will be followed by my description of how organizational culture in India is shaped by societal and global that is originally western cultures. Finally, I shall discuss how Indians keep shifting their behavior, their thoughts, their behaviors, their feeling depending on the kind of organizational cultures in which they operate. In the first part on conceptual frame, let me start with the statement that culture and environment are interrelated according to one definition of culture. Culture is man-made environment as people live their life they focus on environment select parts of the culture, modify them to the extent that they can, attach meanings and significance in order to respond effectively to the culture. They do all kinds of psychological process in that one and as a result of that they create lots of psychological activities. Totality of all that is called culture. That means culture invents itself by constructing environment. This is a very inclusive definition of culture. It includes everything made by human beings at the physical artifacts, social artifacts like family, marriage, religion, then art, literature, rituals, rites, mythology, all these are part of culture. If we take such an exclusive view of culture, then everything becomes culture and the culture loses its explanatory value. If culture is everything, then it is the air that we breathe that is all. There is nothing that can explain in terms of culture. They are called the external manifestations of culture that is not the core of culture. The core of culture consists of assumptions, beliefs, values, norms and practices that orient the people of a geographical area to behave in a specific ways and all these characteristics are transmitted from generation to generation through the socialization process. So, when I talk that culture affects behavior, it is through these values, norms, practices that culture affects behavior. That is what we call affecting behavior through socialization process. Earlier I also talked about how culture affects the environment and therefore, another way that culture affects behavior is by modifying and constructing the environment. However, only part of environment is being constructed. Other parts of environment remain very defined and they demand compliance irrespective of what the culture requires. People respond to those pressure by ignoring their cultural characteristics. For example, during disasters for example, or whenever there is scarcity of goods and services, people forget their decent normal norms and start behaving totally differently. Therefore, we have to think that there are pressures coming from culture. Some of the pressures are internal contradictions within the culture. For example, aging population requires different kind of modifications in values, beliefs, norms and practices. Educated women come into workforce, we have child labor and all kinds of democratic changes require modifications in culture. Then there are major national and international events. You remember the fall of Berlin Wall or collapse of Soviet Union that made a change in the world value of Indians. Similarly, we had this India-China war that has a very demoralizing effect of Indians. Therefore, the major national and international events affect culture. Similarly, emerging threats and opportunities like globalization or new technology. Whenever there are emerging threats, people have to respond to that, cope that. Whenever there are new opportunities, people have to avail that opportunities. In that process, what happens? People behave differently, they set new norms, they change their values, they modify their old values, they add new values, beliefs and in that process, culture gets changed too. Therefore, it is a two-way process. Culture and environment affect each other. They combine to influence human behavior. They conflict to have greater say in human behavior, whether culture will dominate or the environment will dominate. Now, different cultures differ in how they cope with conflicting demands coming from culture and environment. There are cultures which try to iron out differences and develop a kind of melting plot where different forties, different cultural ethnic groups have to conform to the main stream culture whereas there are cultures which allow differences to flourish that we call the basket of flowers. Now, let us turn to a subset of culture. Culture generally refers to societal culture. Work organization is a major constituent of society. So, just as society has a culture, what we call societal culture, so has an organization. Organization also has a culture. Civil culture can also be conceptualized in two ways, just as we did earlier. We can have an inclusive view or we can have an exclusive view of organizational culture. We can talk about the core of culture or its external manifestations. The core of organizational culture has been called corporate soul, spirit and ethos, philosophy guiding the members to decide how and why they work or they do not work, how they relate or do not relate with others. Now, when we take this exclusive view of culture, then we are again talking about just like as we talk in societal culture, we are talking about the underlying assumptions, beliefs, values, norms regarding working and relating with others. So, that is an exclusive view of organizational culture. Can we talk about the inclusive view? Just as earlier I talked about the societal culture including everything that human beings make. Similarly, whatever is there in the organization can be considered as part of organizational culture. It could be mission, vision, objectives of the organization. It could be system, structure, procedures, routines. It could be human resource development and management starting from selection, training, placement, appraisal, reinforcement principles, career progression and it also includes mechanisms that organizations adopts for interfacing with its own environment that I earlier called the Milu. For example, organizations have scanning business Milu mechanisms. Organizations do competitors' profiling. It also engages in networking, alliance formation and so on. Now core of organizational culture is drawn from the societal culture. That is the people's values, beliefs, norms, habits, superstitions, assumptions that they have acquired through primary socialization in the family, they bring them to the organization and that still affect them how they behave in the organization. For example, they learn about the authority system in the family, how to obey parents, how to deal with siblings, or how to gossip against mother to father, or how to fight with other children, or how to seek patronage with the grandfather. And they bring all these sometimes directly in the same way, sometimes symbolically into the organization. Therefore, societal culture gets replicated in the organizational culture, but that is only part of the organizational culture. Organizational culture also structures, systems, procedures, routines, they are generally not from the societal culture. All the societal culture does have a role to play in that, to modify them. For example, Chinese have a smaller business organizations, they work through family network. Over here we have the Marawari community, the Parsis, who have different kind of organizations. We have two types of organizational culture, the Berla type or the Tata type. Tata type has a parsy impact, whereas the Berla has another kind of societal influence. But mostly, I say mostly, Indian organizations, modern Indian organizations have borrowed their structure, systems, procedures, routines for work allocation, for compensation, for training and most of the organizational practices, they have borrowed from the western sources. Now we call global sources, because now we are also affected by the Japanese and the Korean styles of management. Therefore, organizational culture has a mix from the Indian sources, Indian societal culture and the global culture. From the global culture comes technology, capitalist structure, market mechanisms. Now all these have their own value loads. There are certain values, beliefs, norms, practices that come with the package of technology or the kind of capital that you borrow or the kind of market mechanisms that we adopt. Thus organizational culture has a blend of both Indian and global cultures. Besides Indian culture and organizational culture, organizational culture also gets affected by the surrounding environment. There are number of factors in the surrounding environment that affect organizational culture. For example, natural resources, whether the organization is a thermal power plant located in a cold area or whether it is located in a backward area with very poor infrastructure, where there are large number of very poor people live around. Government policy frame, that determines the kind of organizational culture you have. Later on we shall see that in detail, when we see how our business milieu has been evolving over the last 50 years or so. Then there are societal compulsions, poverty. Poverty in India is very pervasive, very miserable, but what is less obvious is what I call poverty syndrome. That is those who are not very poor see poverty around themselves and have got this syndrome of poverty that they perceive that resources are very scarce. There is large number of people are vying for that and they have to compete with each other. They need to have power, lots of power to grab resources by any way. So, that affects the kind of organizational culture. We have job reservations that creates lots of problems too. When those who get jobs because of their caste and then get promoted, so a junior becomes a senior and creates lots of problems in the organization. Later we had very bad situation of militant trade unionism, even today. The other day, Maruti plant in North India had a very bad militant trade unionism, corruption. Corruption eats into the fibrics of organizational culture. Now organizational culture is a product of the interplay of all these forces, three sets of forces we have. Now we shall consider these three forces separately and see how Indians respond to that. So let me go to part two of my presentation on Indian cultural characteristics. The first thing that comes in the mind when we talk about Indian cultural characteristics is the diversity. Diversity is the hallmark of Indian culture, not only physical diversity, the social diversity or demographic diversity, but the diversity in the mindset of people. Indians hold diverse beliefs, discrepant beliefs, even contradictory beliefs and values. That is one thing very typical about Indians. The other is the second one is the uniqueness. Indian culture is very unique. Of course all cultures are unique in their own ways, but Indian culture is much more unique than others. There have been attempts to map cultural clusters in the world and the conclusion is that Indian culture does not belong to any cluster. They have characteristics of the clusters which are different from each other. According to one study it is closer to far east and south station country. Half a stage in his famous study said that Indian culture is part of far east and south station culture. It is collectivist, it has high power distance, inclined towards masculinity and high uncertainty of violence. But there is another study by Harry and his associates who find that India is closer to Latin American culture, not to Eastern culture, Latin American cultures. There is another study by Sirota and Greenwood. They found that Indian culture is very close to Eastern culture and they have documented evidence, very substantive evidence to show that Indians are very westernized. And there is one researcher Che, Che said that the demarcation between east and west is somewhere between Kolkata and Rangoon. Now we call Kolkata and Rangoon and Che quoted Mardal's wife, a sociologist who said that when we come from Japan via Burma to Kolkata, we feel that we have come to the west. Similarly, Japanese when they go from Kolkata to Rangoon, they feel much more comfortable, they feel that they are now within their own culture. So Indian culture is very unique because it has a variety of ideas, it is related to the diversity that I mentioned you earlier. Another very unique thing about Indian culture is that it has continuity for the last three thousand years, may be four thousand years, who knows? There was a scholar in Patna just the other day, he said that Vedic hymns were composed even before Harpan culture, there is a continuity of traditions. In fact it is said that by Pesum that in continuity of traditions, China comes second to India and Greece makes a poor third. No other country in the world has that unparalleled continuity from last four thousand years. That is why if Indian culture is four thousand years ago, then Indians live simultaneously in many centuries. We have, we recite Gayatri, we also have the western music at the same time. Romila Thapar said that some of our traditions are four thousand years ago. So there is unparalleled continuity which reflects Indians belief that ancient wisdom is valid for all times. The Vedic wisdom, what is said in Upanishad are also relevant for the present. If that is so, that is why there is a continuity from the ancient time. The reality is that in between Vedic period and today, India has experienced many invasions, emigrations, alien rules and we have learnt, acquired, assimilated, accommodated many new ideas from them. That is why we are pluralistic. Diverse ideas and influences are tolerated, accepted and welcome. Rigvid said, let nobles ideas come to us from all directions. So if we have new ideas coming from invaders, from the British, from Americans, now from Japanese or Koreans, they are welcome too. If that is the kind of mindset, if that is the cultural orientation, then the preference is to add new ideas to the old one, not to replace the old by the new. There are cultures which have become modernized by forgetting their own past, but because we maintain continuity, we keep adding new ideas to the old one. Do not let the old ideas disappear or eradicated from our mindset. Jawaharlal Nehru said that Indian culture is like palimpsest. You put layers after layers of ideas, influences without erasing the first one. You write on one layer after another layer, so they all stay together. Now, if you have for 4,000 years, if you have layers after layers of influences, you can see what kind of complex culture you will have, what kind of complex ideas you will have. That means we are, we have a melgium of contradictions. We are collectivists, but we are also individualists. We behave in collectivist way to serve individualist interest or we behave in individualist way to serve collectivist interest. We are very hierarchical people. We compare everyone, everything, put them into a hierarchy. If I think that so and so is more affluent, has more money, more power than another person, I will be more friendly to that person. Everything has a hierarchy, but it has a hierarchical image. Costs are hierarchically organized. Society is hierarchical, but merit is recognized all the time irrespective of the cost sometimes. We say there are exceptions, but we do recognize merit. We have in our culture, Kam Shutra. Sexuality has been well accepted in the Indian mindset. So our materialism, we have Charwaks, but we also have Vedantic tradition and spirituality is a strong value. For 10, 15 years, I worked on dependence prowness that Indians are highly dependent. They seek support, help, encouragement, pat on the bed back all the time, but Indians are very entrepreneurial. Go anywhere in the world, Indian businessmen are moving around doing their business. I met one person from Uriya who was in North Canada, where they have snow for 10 months of the year. He was doing business over there, very entrepreneurial people. Indians are emotional, very emotional, but Indians are very calculative at the same time. Indians have a very analytical mind. They are splitting through sastras. They take out meaning after meaning after meaning of the same text, but then Radhakrishnan said that we have synthetic mindset, we combine them together. In Upanishad it is said that wise men divide a reality into a smallest piece and then put them together into whole. So we are analytic, we are synthetic. But above that we are intuitive, where analysis stops, where synthesis does not work, it is the intuitive understanding that helps us our helps us further. If we are so complex with so many paradoxes, so many contradictions, how do we operate? Well, we have very high sense of context. We are highly sensitive to context, contextual demands. And given the paradoxes, given the various options, we keep balancing them. So, context sensitivity and balancing is typical Indian characteristics, which is much more pronounced in Indians than in other people. Nothing has absolute value. Everything depends on Deshkaal Patra. Dharma, which is one of the most important concepts for Indians, has four kinds. Sanatan Dharma is general, overwhelming, true for all times. But Jati Dharma is much more concrete. Swadharma is more relevant, maybe more than Jati Dharma. It is said that the Swadharma of a snake is to bite. So it will bite you. The Swadharma of a thug, Vivekananda said, is to cheat you. So he will cheat you because he is doing his Swadharma. There is Apatkaal Dharma. And there is a crisis. Forget about religion, forget about other norms and do what you can do to survive in a crisis. Now all these four Dharmas are different from each other and you can choose whatever suits you in a conflicting situation. Truth is relative. So is honesty. According to Jainism, there is no one way of deciding what is honest, what is dishonest. Mahatma Gandhi said that non-violence may have different meaning in different situations. Now if things are so relative, then what do Indians do? They sense. They sense what others intend, mean and expect. And I am talking to you, I am talking to you, that is one level of interaction. I am also thinking about you. How you will be useful in future to me? Are you going to be helpful to me or are you going to cheat me? Should I trust you? And I will wait. How should I act to you? But I ask you a favor, now should I ask you now or should I give you a long introduction that look we belong to the same caste, we belong to the same area, we belong to the same community and you or your father was so generous or your grandfather was so generous. Will you please do me this favor? So we always create an ambience, an environment below to decide when to ask for favor, when to act, when to wait patiently. We are very careful when to remain silent. If you are talking against someone and somebody else is listening to me, why should I say anything? So we are very careful to remain silent when silence helps, but we are very carefully, we are very careful to move very quickly and exploit an opportunity when that opportunity appears. So this sensitivity is very typical of Indian culture, balancing Sanskrit saying is avoid extreme do not go to extreme, extreme is bad. Buddhism says Madhyam Nikaya, middle path, we have a very clear description in Chak Sangeeta that do not trust on everyone, but do not be suspicious of everyone, do not behave in anger, but do not behave so emotionally that you lose your sense of what you are doing, do not become very excited when you succeed, do not get very despondent when you fail, keep balance. So balancing is one, but balancing is, but avoiding extreme is not always possible, sometimes you take extreme view, a boy loves a girl very much, he marries her, that is an extreme view in a collectivist culture. So what he will do, once the girl is married then both will become very obedient and nice ideal son and daughter-in-law, serving parents, father-in-law and mother-in-law. So they will take individualist decision and will compensate it by becoming very collectivist. Long back McLean said that Indians give down, give away important resources, but that is a way to exert power. You give liberally so that the other person will become mobilized and now you can ask for favor, you can exert pressure on that. So giving away resources implies exerting power. You give away that means you lose resources, but you are not using resources, you are gaining power. So one extreme is counteracted by another extreme. Third way you balance is that we speak in such a long introductory, rambling way in a very ambivalent way and the listener has to read in between the lines to understand what you mean. Suppose you are appraising your under officer and you want to say that you are not good in your work. You say that Mr. Swenso, I am really impressed by your relationship expertise. You are so nice, you are so friendly. All your colleagues are so happy about you and you are really adorable and of course I mean work is important, but relationship is very important and once you are good in relationship you will also be able to do well. So you say oh he means that I am not good in work right now, so I have to be careful about that. Or you say that well you are average and in this words I am not average, so average is not bad, average is average. So you balance by juggling with words, you balance with giving long rambling introduction, sugar coat your statements in such a way that the other person gets confused or has to read in between the lines to get the essence of that. Now this culture, this Indian culture when percolates into the organization, we are talking about work organizations along with the global culture. What kind of organizational cultures are created, that is part three of my presentation. Now the three as I mentioned earlier, Indian culture, global culture and immediate environment interact to create business milieu. Now this business milieu in India has evolved in last 50 years, broadly speaking they are three phases they overlap, but they are three phases. The first was under developed phase till let us say 1960s starting from 70s to 80s is a phase that I call striving for self reliance. And in 1991 came the new industrial policy that initiated the liberalization and globalization process that is still continuing on and in fact is picking up momentum. In the first phase industrial activities were very limited, we had textiles mostly around Bombay and Nagpur, coal mostly in eastern part Bengal and south Bihar at that time now Jharkhand. We had one iron steel factory small one, public sector was confined to railways, telephones and ordinance factories, very small ones. The organizations were family owned with Parsis and Marawaris and a few colonial leftovers the colonel masters have left some organizations tea gardens particularly, they were clustered in different places. Now these organizations were immune from global forces, they were not affected by global culture, they were dominated by family culture, the owner was the manager and the environment was very restrictive. So once the environment was restrictive, the global culture was not affecting them, organization was totally exposed to familial Indian culture, there was an urgent need to develop industrially that led us to the second phase of striving for self reliance in 70s. You might remember that 70 was a very special period for India, we had been able to get out of demoralization caused by Chinese invasion, India was able to break Pakistan into two, there was a sense of achievement in that one, government expanded industrial activities by establishing a dominant public sector, restricting private sector, restricting foreign direct investment or foreign institutional investment. And the public sector was run by bureaucrats or the managers who were on deputation from the government and the ethos was to protect it from international competition. The organizations that we created at that time were large, technology was foreign, experts were foreign but it was plagued by political interference, over manning and military unionism. Commercial interests were sacrificed for appeasing workers, there was a very popular saying peace by Karo, by peace, industrial peace. So, the emphasis is to keep running the organization without creating any problems, naturally public sector incurred lots of losses which we are written off by the government. The country went into difficult period crisis, we had to mortgage our gold as many of you know and the process of liberalization which was started slowly in 80s got momentum with the new industrial policy in 1991 that was a landmark. As a result of that industrial activities picked up, multinationals large number of multinationals entered into India, foreign direct investment increased, foreign institutional investments increased, they brought new capital, new technology and along with that came the global culture and the best management practices. Once they were here the large mostly private but also public enterprises started emulated multinationals, they ran after seeking joint ventures, their capital, their technology and fresh growth started. It was led by IT companies as most of you know, IT company was able to lead this growth process because it did not require government support to a large extent. It grew despite government bureaucratic hurdles, there are reports about that how the emphasis had to do business at that time. But once the growth process started kept on going, it has slowed down a bit but many Indian companies grew large, they got multinationals to you know the story of how Tata Steel led the movement to acquire Koras and the British, what is the name of that car making companies, whatever the name is, similarly the Berla group did that and so on and so forth. So, Indian companies became multinationals too, so there is a growth process in this refresh. Now, if you take this evolution of business Milo in view, you can visualize organizational landscape in India. Having three phases, I said that they are sequentially arranged but they are overlapping. We still have places in India which have phase one, we still have places in India which have phase two, government bureaucracy still dominates in many sectors. As a result of that these three forces working at three phases of business Milo have created four major kinds of organizational culture. The fourth one has a fifth variant that I will discuss too, but let us first get the four ones. The one type that I have found in my research is the Ormoral work-centric culture. It is located in the backward areas of the country, they are small in size, medium in size, family owned. Then we have soft work culture in large or even small bureaucratic public sector where culture has overwhelmed the work requirements. I will go to the details later on. We have nurturing task oriented culture in large professional private sector organizations and we have now market driven a strategically oriented culture in foreign and Indian multinationals. Let us take a look at the Ormoral work-centric culture. The main theme the ethos in such a culture is maximizing profit by exploiting employees. We still have in the backwater of the country where the owner extracts as much work as physically possible, maintain unhygienic and harsh physical conditions of one, took better care of their machines than men. Machines may be old, but the machines are maintained very well so that they must function, they must be utilized properly. New machines are bought, but men are neglected, they are paid lowest pay and perks. Supervisors are pampered and they are asked to control and command the workers and get maximum work. They are like the middle level boss, Dada. Now in order that the workers do not revolt or do not resent too much, pretty favors are given whenever there is exigencies. If there is a marriage in the family of a worker, the master will give something special or if there is a sickness in the family, the master will give some favors or if the son of a workers has to get a job or admission in the school, the master will help. Pretty favors in order to keep the workers from boiling, workers are unorganized in that kind of situation. They think that the owner is my mom, my parents, they take care of us. They feel obliged, they give us job and whenever we are in trouble, they help us and if we do not obey, if we do not work hard, they will fire us, they will always get a substitute. I am not technically so competent that they will not get a replacement. So the workers have very low self esteem and they succumb to that kind of culture. Let us go to the second kind of culture, soft work culture. Soft work culture is where work requirements are compromised as I said earlier to please the employees. Organizational and sectorial interests overwhelm organizational goals and objectives. Your university system is a good example of that even today. Large public sector organization used to be that way. I have documented the details in one of my books. When the government started public sector, the idea was that we should do justice to the employees, give them proper housing. So before the plant was operated, housing colonies were constructed fast and the workers thought that well the organization is for us, we are not for organization and if that is so, the more they can demand, the more they will get that lead to militant trade unions. Trade unions got fragmented because they competed with each other, who can demand more, who can press the management more and the management was very defensive. They always saved themselves taking a bureaucratic view. I remember that in one of the public sector organizations, I said that why do not you do something about it. He said that professor do you want me to lose my job. This is a place where action has to be defended not in action. If I do not do anything in whole of my life, my confidential report will be clean and I will have no problem in getting promoted according to seniority. But if I take an action, I will step on someone's toes, there will be a complaint against me that will go against my confidential report and whenever my case of promotion will come somebody will cite it. So why should I do anything about that, peaceful routine got priority over performance. Let the organization run after all the government of India has plenty of money to bail out this organization. Why should anybody bother about it, but even during that period there were organizations that has very focused objectives. They created synergy by blending familial care with work demands. The focus was very clear, take full care of the employees and their families and demand that they reciprocate by performing as well as they can. In that kind of culture, the main actors were the superiors as they are always are. The superiors were patriarch, they were not participative leaders, they were like father and patrons, provided very close supervision, but helped employees in personal matters. I remember I was doing research in a steel company and I was told that this superintendent is the best and has been getting the best performance award for last five years. So I personally interviewed him and I asked him what is the mystery. He said nothing, it is very simple, I go out of my way and help my subordinates in personal matters. Whenever there is a marriage in the family, I go and stand there, I give my car to them. If an employee gets sick, I ask his co-worker to go and attend him and I mark him present, I do something illegal, I bend rules. And that supervisor I was talking about cultivated personal loyalty and therefore the employee is rallying around the supervisor and worked very hard sincerely and in fact identified with the organization. Now let me move to the next form of organizational culture, market driven and strategically oriented. There is a some difference between the two. One variant is a market driven of multinational variety which is of western type and the other is much more holistic which has integrated western values and Indian values. Now market driven organizations have objectives to provide high quality products and services at the lowest cost with the maximum satisfaction to the employees and good return to the shareholders. They use a number of macro level measures like restructuring and right sizing, acquisition, mergers, alliance formation, networking and they try to enlarge their markets. Along with macro level measures, they also have a micro level measures. They initiate strong research and development activities, introduce latest technology, benchmark with the best of organizations, re-engineering products and services and do competitors profiling for improving their own performance. Strategically oriented organizations include whatever market driven organizations do but they take the market driven organizations a step further by focusing on the larger picture that is the business environment, position the organization in the global market, scan business environment, create new market, work through flexible teams and maintain global perspective that is they adopt global perspective and local applications or local perspectives and global applications. Now let me talk about the organizational culture in the multinational of western world view. Over there the mantra is perform or perish, strong task orientation, priority to achieve, pay for performance and what I call the 1, 2, 3 principle that is the organization hires one person, pays that person double and takes three times of work. They put them in teams and keep talking about the team work but there is intense interpersonal competition within the team members. So this kind of organization creates intense interpersonal competition to get best out of workers and as soon as an employee performs best then the person is considered to be useless thereafter. Contractual relationship you will be paid what your market value is, you will be paid what you are contributing, once you stop contributing then you are nobody. That means that means the employees have short life cycle and tenures, they change job they are supposed to change job. Now let me start with holistic integrative organizational culture, it is still just coming up in a few organizations in India where the best of global management, global values or western values are being integrated with the best of Indian values and a kind of organization is being created where human values leverage organizational excellence. Organization caters to the social and personal needs of employees by going beyond the legal requirements. What is legal contract is the minimum but organization also have a kind of psychological contract to take care of the employees their social and personal needs. In fact the employees are given a piece of ownership by allowing them to own share. As a result employees which are generally better educated white color workers, engineers mostly saw that for engineers and managers, saw the totality of the organization, give their best to the organization, they are inspired by higher values, they care more for integrity than what economic gains they are getting and the belief in going along with others. That is there is competition, interpersonal competition but it is to cooperate with each other and let the organization excel in performance. Now you have seen the five kinds of organizational cultures that we have in India, different combination of these five types have many more patterns. Indians behave differently in these five cultural settings because culture equips Indians to acquire both traditional Indian and western beliefs, values, norms and practices. They have in their repertoire as I said earlier a very complex amalgam of paradoxes, they are highly sensitive to organizational culture as I said you and they select the ideas from both traditional and western sources and keep reorganizing their mindset to survive in adverse condition and prosper in favorable condition. The sense people, the sense what the organizational culture is, what the boss intends, what the organization is up to, what their strategy is and they can be dishonest manipulative worker, they can be honest, dedicated or creative, they can function as good organizational citizen, they can be a burden on the organization. It all depends on how the organization structures itself, Indians have cultural capability to sense the organization and reorganize themselves, organization sets the rules of the game and Indians are capable to play that role accordingly. Thank you for listening.