*Disclaimer: It is important to note that this post was written from one particular western perspective in regards to the cultural customs of a country other than my own home nation*
I work at an educational in South Korea. This organization has extremely high turnover, because it has a significant percentage of foreigner teachers who typically stay for one or two years before returning to their home countries. Some of these individuals would like to stay longer but there is a major cultural barrier: foreigners struggle to understand the Korean concept of leadership.
South Korea has a deep history of Confucianism (CDA, 2015), which pervades Korean culture to this day. In relationship to leadership, this philosophy dictates that leaders should be treated with “obedience and loyalty” that far surpasses what an American worker would be expected to exhibit (CDA, 2015). Although hotly debated, many within and outside of South Korea suggested that obedience to authority figures played a significant role in the outcome of the Sewol Ferry tragedy in the spring of 2014 (Koleilat, 2014).
In my own organization, this expectation of obedience is a source of confusion and conflict for many workers. While the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality can be observed and applied in this culture, it seems to stress different traits and score them differently (Northouse, 2015). For example, leaders display high agreeableness with other similarly situated employees such as department heads, but, leaders, if considered from a Western perspective, would appear to have lower agreeableness scores when interacting with subordinates.
In addition what may seem to be an extremely neurotic action to a Western perspective, can be considered an emotionally stable or reasonable choice. Another remnant of Confucianism is a high value of social esteem. Being well respected is important to most people worldwide, but the value of being well respected is higher in countries in which Confucianism has had a big impact than the United States. (CDM, 2015). One term used to describe the necessity to allow someone to remain respected is “saving face” (Kim,1993). As Kim noted, where a western concept of self-esteem is based largely on how one views himself or herself, a Korean concept of self-esteem places are larger emphasis on how the individual feels he or she is perceived by others. The most poignant example is the comparative value of life and honor. Kim said “Even today Korean youth choose death before dishonor […] when they cannot maintain excellent school work” (1993).
Make no mistake; individuals within South Korea have varied opinions on these topics. In practice, the leader who would rather face death than dishonor and the leader who gives instruction but does not receive suggestions from subordinates, is considered to be one who scores high on neuroticism and agreeableness scores. This varies greatly from a typical western perspective of those two traits.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015, January). PSYCH 485 Module 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp15/psych485/002/content/02_lesson/14_page.html
CDA Media. (2015). World Business Culture. South Korea Management Style. Retrieved from http://www.worldbusinessculture.com/South-Korean-Management-Style.html
Koleilat, L. (2014, September). East asia forum. The Sewol ferry tragedy. Retrieved from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/09/04/the-sewol-ferry-tragedy-and-its-ongoing-impact-on-south-korean-society/
Kim, K.O. (1993). Intercultural communication studies. What is behind face-saving in cross-cultural communication. Retrieved from http://www.trinity.edu/org/ics/ICS%20Issues/03%20ICS%20III%201/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20p%2039%20Kim.pdf
Justin Colby Hennighan says
Hello Klatann
The Kim 1993 study referenced addresses your question in an interesting way. As you have probably realized, social intelligence would be defined slightly differently. Kim brought up the concept of saving face. He defined it as being deeper than the common idea. My understanding of saving face is an act that enables a person to avoid embarrassment or shame, but Kim said that in South Korea, saving face is more about not embarrassing others by not being shamed. In a society with Confucian roots, causing another person shame can sometimes overshadow the reason why that individual feels shame. For example in business guide for Korea, it details a man’s experience in which he called out a business partners son for stealing the man’s pen. His business partner was seemed more angry with the man than his own son, because by calling out the relatively minor problem, it had caused the business partner shame. Considering that, Kim is saying that the true motive of saving face is to alleviate the shame faced by the individual who has put you into a shameful situation.
In my experience, South Koreans seem more empathetic towards each other than I would expect to see in the United States. One potential reason is that the country is extremely homogeneous. Another potential cause is Korea’s history of being invaded by Japan and China. That history has helped to bring the Korean people together in a us-against-the-world manner. The third and probably best explanation is that Korean culture demands the ability to recognize the unspoken feelings of those around you.
Klatann Thomas says
In reading your post, it was indeed refreshing take in your cultural twist on the 5 factor model and how it applied to particular situation. I was very impressed and your honesty and frankness regarding the levels of obedience that are implied in expectations imposed.
The concept of a leader who would rather face death than dishonor is a stark contrast to the tremendous numbers of highly publicized corrupt leaders throughout much of Western culture. Additionally, your insights regarding neuroticism and agreeableness scores as variance from a typical Western perspective placed new light toward the application and interpretation of effective leadership as I had previously viewed.
Though it was not address directly in your post, I’m very curious as to the interpretation and impact of social intelligence and leadership in your location/South Korea. Understanding that, “Social intelligence is comprised of two factors: Social awareness, which is basically being able to be empathetic to others situations.” and “Social facility, which is the ability to act on that empathy in ways that change the situation for the better.”(PSU, 2015) with the differences and expectations within the culture.
Thanks for great post. I hope to hear your response