Your Workplace: How Does Culture Impact Perception?

Clear-thinking people everywhere acknowledge that it's easy for two people to see the same situation very differently.

In a world where we increasingly work across time zones and cultures, this would have even greater meaning if perceptions were influenced by one's culture. While those of us who work globally may have experienced--and thought about-- the inherent reality of these perceptive differences, Canadian and Japanese researchers  have confirmed some very specific distinctions.

When East Doesn't Meet West

According to the study:

Researchers showed Japanese and North American participants images, each of which consisted of one center model and four background models in each image. The researchers manipulated the facial emotion (happy, angry, sad) in the center or background models and asked the participants to determine the dominant emotion of the center figure.

The outcome?

The majority of Japanese participants (72%) reported that their judgments of the center person's emotions were influenced by the emotions of the background figures, while most North Americans (also 72%) reported they were not influenced by the background figures at all.

Takahiko Masuda, a Psychology professor from the University of Alberta, noted:

"Our results demonstrate that when North Americans are trying to figure out how a person is feeling, they selectively focus on that particular person's facial expression, whereas Japanese consider the emotions of the other people in the situation."

This may be because Japanese attention is not concentrated on the individual, but includes everyone in the group, says Masuda.

Why Is This Important for Business?

1. It has always baffled me when I've watched Western corporations decide to indiscriminately import programs and processes that  work well in the East. Looking for a "quick fix" or a "magic pill" is a very North American business characteristic. At the same time, there is no reason not to examine the principles behind things that work elsewhere; then, figure out what might be applicable and how to make it work,

When corporate meeting rooms ring with the cry, "Perception is reality," then Masuda's study should be a caution that global reality can't be driven by local perceptions.

2. Even more specifically, definitions of "team" hugely influence what happens across cultures. North American "teams" are made up of individuals who see themselves as individuals participating in a group with a common purpose for some finite period of time (my observation and experience). Eastern team members honor the group as the important entity to be served, not as a vehicle to one's individual career aspirations.

While time and exposure have somewhat altered instances of the above in the minds of some, Masuda's study should be taken seriously by organizations involved in East-West business and collaboration.

This is one instance where perception can be grounded in reality--for the good of all concerned.

 

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Comments

[Michelle Malay Carter]

Steve,

Very interesting. Thanks for this post.

My career is dedicated to helping executives fix the systems within which their employees are working in order to achieve engagement and productivity.

Yet, executives seem resistant to see the forest for the trees. The mainstream model is to focus on fixing individuals through training and coaching. It's not working - we have only 21% of employees saying they are engaged.

Maybe I should take my practice to Japan as Deming did. Then in 10 years the US companies might be begging me to come back? :)

Regards,

Michelle Malay Carter

[Steve Roesler]

Michelle, I actually do understand why it might feel awfully tempting to take the Deming route. Really.

Your take on this has fired up some of my own frustrations about the individual vs. organizational focus of much "development."

What caused me to get into this field to begin with was the emerging organization development movement--and its systemic focus--in the '70s. The approach also acknowledged continually emerging behavioral research. The intent was to build enhanced organizational systems that would also respect the people in them; professional development was seen as a sub-set of OD.

This is a conversation that I would enjoy pursuing. . .

[David Zinger]

Steve:

Only you could weave together your Philadelphia perspective with Alberta and Japan and get good solid conclusions. I noticed no one was standing behind you in the picture of the website, but you look happy.

I have seen the actual pictures and they are cartoons so we might even want to be cautious about how we make inferences about conclusions drawn from cartoons to actual real people.

David

[Steve Roesler]

David,

Huh??!!

What did I miss?

[Chris Bailey]

There two things here that make sense to me based on my experience: insertion of so-called "best practices" in hopes of mimicking success from somewhere else; and the tendency to look at the individual and ignore (or at least push aside) the surrounding environment. These are two management traits that I've seen pretty much stomp on any attempts to generate innovation and employee engagement in the workplace.

Perhaps it's getting to David's point that the experiment might be more credible if it was done with real-life folks in real-life situations. The cartoons are rather abstract and might simply yield the results one would expect to see (just because they make intuitive sense doesn't necessarily make it accurate).

But once again Steve, you've managed to generate some passionate dialogue here which is one reason I love your blog.

[Jim Stroup]

I have spent considerable time in parts of the world - including Japan, when I was younger - where the culture is collectivist, as opposed to the individualism that dominates in the U.S. - possibly the most pronounced version of it found in the world.

One thing I have found is that individuals in collectivist cultures sometimes simply don't see themselves in as thoroughly distinct or unconnected a way as Americans do. Ties to various networks - from family to work - link the fates and interests of group members together in a way we don't understand, and they emerge in each individual. An American can sometimes even sense the influence - the virtual presence - of that linked group of people in a conversation with an individual from such a culture.

Development in a collectivist culture prepares an individual to honorably represent the group and to productively extend its ambit. Development in American culture prepares us to figure out how to make our way more or less on our own. There are inescapable historical reasons for these differences to have come in to being. But modern life is bringing them into collision more frequently and in more contexts.

It seems to me that they may explain why the members of the cultures you cite look to different sources for clues as to the morale and attitude of the target individuals.

[Joan Schramm]

Back in the early 90's, I was in the Navy stationed in Japan. There is certainly a different collective mindset there, relating to just about everything.

One particular situation I found very interesting, and shows how highly the Japanese value the concept of being part of a team

The local Japanese high schools' sports teams played intermural games against the teams from the military bases in the area.

The Japanese were astounded to learn that the American students had to maintain a certain GPA in order to be eligible for the team. As far as they were concerned, playing sports was part of being a well-rounded individual and a valuable part of a student's experience. It wasn't a "reward" for getting good grades. Japanese students played on sports teams regardless of whether they were passing or failing their schoolwork. It was considered part of the learning experience and not something to be allowed or denied based on circumstances.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Chris,

You bring up what may possibly be a wider concern of people who kind of squint at the cartoon-based nature of the research.

That said, the results are pretty darned consistent with the experiences of Jim Stroup and Joan Schramm who have both been physically present to perform work in Japan. For some strange reason, my travels have not taken me to Japan but I worked with groups of Japanese business people in the Middle East, Africa, and the U.S. My real-life experiences have mirrored those of Joan and Jim.

I applaud your observations about mimicking best practices and focusing on the individual without taking into account the greater contextual factors. This, to me, is one of the biggest pitfalls in organizational thinking today and one which I know is also a focus of Michelle's practice (www.missionmindedmanagement.com).

Thanks, Chris.

[Steve Roesler]

Jim,

I was figuring that you (and Joan) would probably have some "on-site" experience from the cultural perspective, knowing your backgrounds. So I appreciate the time taken to comment.

As I thought more about your experience and comment, it occurred to me that the collective vs. individual orientation has other implications. For example: If an organization believes that individual satisfaction is the foundation of organizational performance, then it would take an exponentially longer amount of time to "deal with performance issues" than in a society that sees groups as the mainstay of performance.

We can go a lot of places with this one, Jim. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Joan,

Your high school example speaks volumes about how "values lessons" are able to be powerfully communicated through public education. (This is also an indicator, to me, that every society should be actively involved in deliberately and consistently determining what is--and isn't--part of a curriculum). As a result of their cultural predisposition, the Japanese have excelled at business models requiring teams and collective quality. It's "built in" to the system as a result of overarching values. Not unlike cultures whose governments and communities fund symphony orchestras because of a belief in the inherent value of the arts.

These inherently different orientations play out--obviously--in differing degrees of success depending upon the environment and the individual vs. group factors for success. As time goes on, we indeed see a bit more of a melting of the distinctions when people see a practical reason (profit) to do so.

I wonder how well we are educating potential business leaders in the genuine understanding of the distinctions as well as the contexts in which one might be more desirable to support than the other? It's unreasonable, at best, to ask any nation of people to alter their culture to make life more comfortable for everyone else.

So it boils down to "life": How do we use what we know about other people in a way that offers respect and, at the same time, attempts to bring together "the best" of everything--without diluting the truth in anything?"

Much thanks, Joan. . .

[Kenneth Leong]

At the same time, American firms also adopt American practices globally, sometimes disregarding local cultural considerations.

It's hard to get executives to take culture into account if the executives do not realise what aspects to consider. Most executives understand the importance of cultural intelligence, but do not know where to start.

My contention is that a good place to start is by making an attempt to learn a foreign language. For most native English speakers, this exercise would be a real eye-opener.

Linguistic differences highlight cultural differences in very obvious ways.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Kenneth,

Well, you've hit my "hot button" with this one.

I've spent much of my career living and working outside of North America. Indeed, something as simple as at least learning the basics of another language offers a sense of respect for those with whom one is working. And as you mention, feeling the flow and rhythm of the other language tells a lot about the flow and rhythm of the culture.

Since most of my large clients are global, I have to say that they do acknowledge cultural considerations when doing business. The breakdown comes when it is an intellectual exercise and someone is "sent" to do business without having someone local to add credibility and smoothness to the relationship. The smart companies have hired "locals" to manage the business locally.

Thanks, Kenneth, for taking the time to weigh in. . .