an excerpt from my latest work in progress Korea Perspective
Chapter 1 Connected, Fluid
and Conditional
Perhaps the most enlightening experiences over my career as a business
consultant has been managing Korea-based projects. As a result of years of
study, research and coaching I developed a cognitive understanding into the
Korean mindset. That said, nothing grounds one in reality as actually dealing
with situations first hand. What stands
out from my Korea facing work (cognitive and real life) 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.[1]
I interpret innerconnectiveness
to mean the oneness of all things. A similar term, interdependence also applies to Korean workplace. Both terms refer
to the idea that all things are of a single underlying substance and reality.
More so, any separation is only at the superficial level. Drilling deeper, the core
is the concept of universal oneness.
Overarching
I find the concept of this oneness as overarching and the
foundation for values often used to describe the cross-cultural differences
between Western and Eastern nations. The most relevant values to the Korean
workplace are collectivism, high power distance and low risk tolerance. As for
collectivism, in Korea the group is the primary unit of reality and the
ultimate standard of value.
In collectivistic societies, group goals take precedent over an
individual’s objectives. This view does not deny the reality of the
individual, but ultimately collectivism holds that one's identity is determined
by the group(s) with which one is affiliated. Essentially, one's identity is
molded by relationships with others.
Collectivistic cultures also require that individuals fit into
the group. The group’s goals and needs supersede the individual’s
comfort and satisfaction. Within the
collectives, the group shares responsibility and accountability, while
fostering harmony, cooperation and interdependence. Independence vs.
interdependence is, of course, not an either/or matter. Every society—and every individual—is a blend of both. [2]
Rooted
I also see innerconnectiveness as an outcome of Korea and East Asia’s
strong rooting in Taoist, Confucian and Buddhism. Again citing Nisbett:
Confucianism blended smoothly with
Taoism. In particular, the deep appreciation of
the contradictions and changes in human life, and the need to see things whole,
that are integral to the notion of a
yin-yang universe are also part of Confucian philosophy.
[3]
In addition philosopher Donald Munro pointed out that East Asians understand themselves in
"their relation to the whole, such as
the family, society, Tao Principle, or Pure Consciousness.” [4]
I would include the workplace in Munro’s
paradigm.
As for the influence of Buddhism, Pratītyasamutpāda is commonly
translated as dependent
origination or dependent arising. The term is used in the Buddhist teaching and refers to
one of the central concepts in the Buddhist tradition—that all things arise in dependence
upon multiple causes and conditions.
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 project in which I was engaged, a
meeting concluded following a high level presentation to division heads with
the leadership pleased, but deferring decisions until they internally
discussed.
To the dismay of the 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 were
poorly equipped to handle the assignments. The lead team sought to maintain
harmony above all—even
knowing their project would suffer.
A
Question
Pondering on the concept of
the “ oneness of things”, this raises a question. Is considering actions that
will impact a myriad of relationships more important than process, procedures
and planning in the Korea workplace?
Copyright 2014 BCW
###
###
No comments:
Post a Comment