What are the five questions that every society must answer according to Kluckhohn and strodtbeck?

The Values Orientation Theory (VOT) was developed in the 1940s by three anthropologists working with the Harvard Values Project – Florence Kluckhohn, Clyde Kluckhohn, and Frederick Strodtbeck. They were attempting to address the “limited number of common human problems for which all societies at all times must find some solution,” because “how a group is predisposed to understand, give meaning to, and solve these common problems is an outward manifestation of its innermost values, its window on the world: its value orientation” (Gallagher, 2001).

Clyde Kluckhohn defined the term value as “a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable, which influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action” (Hills, 2002). In other words, a value is an idea that demarcates a desirable course of action within a given context. For example, the idea that we should act with steadfast strength in the face of what causes us to be fearful leads us to take courageous actions. Here the value of courage is the catalyst of taking the desirable course of action.

Despite the focus on values, the VOT actually describes “the foundation assumptions or orientations upon which a culture builds its value system.” So, the VOT is a framework for understanding where our values come from. It is also helpful to keep in mind that these assumptions and orientations towards values vary within cultures as well as amongst them (Gallagher, 2001).

The Kluckhohns and Strodtbeck suggested that there were five problems common to and requiring resolution by all cultures. Posing these five problems as questions provides a measurement of a culture’s value orientation. In the group’s Rimrock study, they tested their theory across five different cultures – Zuni pueblo dwellers, Texan homesteaders, a Navaho Indian band, Mormon villagers, and Mexican-Americans. This research led to the conclusion that a culture would answer each of the five questions with one of three possible responses. These responses can be reasonably thought of as three points on a continuum. These five problems are based on how humans relate to the following dimensions of existence:

Time: The problem of time focuses on what our orientation towards time should be.

• Should we focus on the past and the conservation of tradition?
• Should we focus on the present and changing tradition to suit the present moment?
• Should we focus on the future and planning for tomorrow?

Humans and Nature: The problem of humanity and the natural environment focuses on how we should relate to nature.

• Should we attempt to master and control nature?
• Should we attempt to live in harmony with nature, exerting partial control in certain circumstances?
• Should we be submissive to the forces of nature not attempting to exercise any control?

Human Relations: The problem of human relations concerns how we should relate to one another.

• Should hierarchy and systems of authority form the basis of how we relate to one another and make decisions?
• Should we relate to one another as equals and seek consensus in making decisions?
• Should we relate to one another through emphasizing our individuality and autonomous decision making capacity?

Motivation for Action: The problem of what motivates our actions concerns the primary drivers of our behavior.

• Should our actions focus on being – on acting in a manner aligned with our internal motivations and desire for self expression?
• Should our actions focus on becoming – on growing in a manner aligned with our internal motivations?
• Should our actions focus on achieving – on acting in a manner aligned with external motivations?

Human Nature: The problem of human nature concerns the fundamental quality of character and whether or not that quality can change.

• Should we view human beings as essentially good natured, and can that nature be changed?
• Should we view human beings as essentially evil in nature, and can that nature be changed?
• Should we view human beings as both good and evil (mixed) in nature, and can that nature be changed?

So how does this apply to conflict management? A great example of the efficacy of the VOT in conflict management comes from the story of the “Lummi Tribe and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. The conflict, about management of Native lands with spiritual values, was resolved and has produced a long-standing working relationship between the two groups” (Gallagher, 2001). In this instance, both sides were trained in the VOT before beginning negotiations. Gallagher and Hills note that this exercise produced several benefits:

1. It helped parties to understand their values, the other side’s values, and their differences in perspective that exist in values surrounding the five problems of the VOT.
2. It helped parties to break their own myopic thinking that stems from unconsciously believing their world view is the only world view
3. It helped parties avoid making negative attributions about each other because they are interpreting the other side’s words and actions through their subjective world view

In addition to these benefits, there are two others that I have experienced in my own work –

1. Cultural understanding promotes respect between parties, and gives both side the opportunity to demonstrate that respect throughout the negotiation process
2. Cultural understanding promotes a deeper understanding of the perspectives of the individuals at the negotiating table, which can lead to more thoughtful and creative solutions to the problems underpinning the negotiation

The VOT provides a framework through which understanding can be established and promoted to manage conflict. By understanding the theory and its implications, Conflict Managers can bridge the root causes of misunderstanding between parties rather that trying to address the symptoms of those misunderstandings.

Sources

• Tom Gallagher, “Understanding Other Cultures: The Value Orientations Method,” Paper presented at the Association of Leadership Educators Conference, Minneapolis, MN, July 2001.
• Michael D. Hills, “Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Values Orientation Theory,” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, 2002, http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1040