In Korea Perspective, which I released at the beginning of the year, I discuss the complexity of the Korean workplace.
What stands out in Korea facing work is the innerconnectiveness of their workplace. Author Richard Nisbett describes the concept well in The Geography of Thought:
To the Westerner, it makes sense to speak of a person as having attributes that are independent of circumstances or particular personal relations.
This self— this bounded, impermeable free agent—can move from group to group and setting to setting without significant alteration.
But for the Easterner (and for many other peoples to one degree or another), the person is connected, fluid, and conditional…
The person participates in a set of relationships that make it possible to act and purely independent behavior is usually not possible or really even desirable.
Since all action is in concert with others, or at the very least affects others, harmony in relationships becomes a chief goal of social life.
In addition philosopher Donald Munro pointed out that East Asians understand themselves in “their relation to the whole, such as the family, society…” I would include the workplace in Munro’s paradigm.
An Example
The Korean workplace is a complexity of interrelations. Decisions must consider relationships and the impact to the organization. To share an example from a global project in which I was engaged, a meeting concluded following a high level presentation to division heads with the Korean leadership pleased, but deferring decisions until they “internally discussed.”
To the dismay of the Korean project leads in the days following the presentation assignments for portions of the project were distributed to a number of departments. In private the project’s lead team was not pleased but accepted the mandate. There was no recourse since the parceling came from leadership. The team did not wish to create an issue despite knowing that the other teams with only domestic Korea experience were poorly equipped to handle the global assignment. Following the cultural norm, the lead team accepted the situation and sought to maintain harmony above all—even knowing their project would suffer.
Questions, Comments?
Just go to:
Connect with Don Southerton
Korea Perspective book link
Link To Korea Perspective
Everything Korea, October 5 Episode, Connected and Conditional
In Korea Perspective, which I released at the beginning of the year, I discuss the complexity of the Korean workplace.
What stands out in Korea facing work is the innerconnectiveness of their workplace. Author Richard Nisbett describes the concept well in The Geography of Thought:
To the Westerner, it makes sense to speak of a person as having attributes that are independent of circumstances or particular personal relations.
This self— this bounded, impermeable free agent—can move from group to group and setting to setting without significant alteration.
But for the Easterner (and for many other peoples to one degree or another), the person is connected, fluid, and conditional…
The person participates in a set of relationships that make it possible to act and purely independent behavior is usually not possible or really even desirable.
Since all action is in concert with others, or at the very least affects others, harmony in relationships becomes a chief goal of social life.
In addition philosopher Donald Munro pointed out that East Asians understand themselves in “their relation to the whole, such as the family, society…” I would include the workplace in Munro’s paradigm.
An Example
The Korean workplace is a complexity of interrelations. Decisions must consider relationships and the impact to the organization. To share an example from a global project in which I was engaged, a meeting concluded following a high level presentation to division heads with the Korean leadership pleased, but deferring decisions until they “internally discussed.”
To the dismay of the Korean project leads in the days following the presentation assignments for portions of the project were distributed to a number of departments. In private the project’s lead team was not pleased but accepted the mandate. There was no recourse since the parceling came from leadership. The team did not wish to create an issue despite knowing that the other teams with only domestic Korea experience were poorly equipped to handle the global assignment. Following the cultural norm, the lead team accepted the situation and sought to maintain harmony above all—even knowing their project would suffer.
Questions, Comments?
Just go to:
Connect with Don Southerton
Korea Perspective book link
Link To Korea Perspective