Tag: behavior

Irish Exit Versus Midwest Goodbye: How Do You Take Leave?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you prefer to slip out of the party without anyone noticing?

Or is your departure a big production?

Our preferred manner of taking leave can speak volumes about social norms and interpersonal dynamics. 

From the brisk Irish exit to the prolonged Midwest goodbye, each culture exhibits distinctive practices that have become stereotypes. 

So, before we bid farewell, let’s uncover the unspoken customs that shape our social exits.

Irish Goodbye

The Irish goodbye, also widely known as the “French exit,” is a social departure strategy characterized by slipping away from a gathering or event without bidding farewell or announcing one’s departure. 

Unlike the customary practice of saying goodbye to each person individually, the Irish goodbye involves leaving discreetly, often to avoid prolonged farewells or awkward conversations. 

The tactic is appreciated by those who prefer a quiet exit, finding conventional goodbyes time-consuming or uncomfortable. 

While some view it as a breach of social etiquette, others see it as a pragmatic and considerate way to make an exit without disrupting the flow of an event. 

The Irish goodbye exemplifies a subtle and understated departure, embodying a balance between social grace and personal convenience in navigating social situations.

The title of this departure style suggests an association with Irish social customs…although that may just be assumed. 

In my research, I’ve found that these terms – Irish goodbye, French exit – may have been invented as insults.

The British are said to have invented “French Leave” to criticize the French, with whom they’ve historically butted heads, while funnily enough, the French call the same act “to leave the English way.”

In Germany, it’s called the “Polish Exit.” In Poland, the “English Exit.”

It doesn’t actually appear to be a stereotypical behavior or social norm of any one of these cultures.

And yet, these terms all represent the act of ducking out early.

Midwest Goodbye

The Midwest goodbye is a regional social custom prevalent in the American Midwest, characterized by a prolonged and elaborate departure process. 

Unlike the Irish goodbye, this tradition involves a series of extended farewells, conversations, and well-wishing that can significantly extend the time it takes to leave a social gathering. 

Individuals partake in a series of incremental goodbyes, moving from group to group, expressing gratitude, and engaging in small talk before finally making their exit. 

This ritual is deeply ingrained in Midwest culture, reflecting values of warmth, friendliness, and community.

The Midwest Goodbye is often seen as a genuine expression of care and appreciation for others, emphasizing the importance of personal connections and social bonds. 

While it may extend the duration of the farewell process, many in the Midwest consider it a polite and respectful way to conclude social interactions. 

The Midwest Goodbye showcases the cultural nuances and emphasis on interpersonal relationships in the region, offering a stark contrast to more abrupt departure styles observed in other parts of the country.

This is one that I’ve personally witnessed and can say is a true social norm of that region.

But as for the French or Irish exit, I’m curious if this method of departure is cultural in any way or truly is an invented stereotype.

If you know more, please share in the comments.

Safety & Health in Tight/Loose Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been talking about how tightness and looseness in culture can affect everything from workplace attitude and behavior to innovation.

E. Scott Geller’s article in EHSToday delves into how cultural tightness and looseness also impact occupational health and safety.

The article focuses on the work of Professor Gelfand, author of Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How tight and loose cultures wire our world.

Gelfand identifies differences in approach and behavior across cultures regarding rules, regulations, and protocols.

In doing so, we may even begin to understand our cultural differences.

According to Professor Michele Gelfand,

“Tight-loose theory can help deepen our empathy toward those whose way just doesn’t sync with ours.”

What is Tight/Loose Theory?

Gelfand’s tight/loose theory, as detailed in her book, provides insights into the contrasting responses people exhibit when faced with regulations. 

Some comply without argument, some reluctantly adhere, and others fight compliance, vocally and even physically. 

But why?

These differences ultimately have to do with the tightness or looseness of culture.

Tight/Loose Cultures

Distinguishing between tighter countries (for instance, China, Germany, India, Japan, Pakistan, and Singapore) and looser countries (such as, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, and the U.S.) comes down to various aspects of society. 

Tighter countries tend to have autocratic governments, higher population densities, historical exposure to infectious diseases and national disasters, and fewer natural resources. 

In these societies, solidarity is higher, contributing to successful pandemic control measures.

Conversely, looser countries exhibit higher immigrant populations, greater creativity, acceptance of diversity, free speech, and tolerance of change. 

However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, looser countries faced challenges due to lower adherence to preventive behaviors. 

Relationship Between Subjective Well-Being & Cultural Tightness

Gelfand and company discovered a curvilinear relationship between subjective well-being (SWB) and cultural tightness, with extremely tight and loose nations displaying the lowest SWB levels.

Not only that, but they had the lowest life expectancies and the lowest gross domestic product per capita.

Moderate countries had the highest SWB and lower suicide rates and depression levels.

This goes to show that extremism at any level is ultimately unhealthy for a society and ineffective.

Future of OHS Management

The cultural dynamic of tightness and looseness extends beyond national borders, impacting various aspects of life, including social norms, interpersonal behaviors, and reactions to occupational health and safety (OHS) rules. 

Involving employees in shaping safety protocols and fostering a sense of autonomy can enhance OHS outcomes in diverse cultural contexts. 

This nuanced understanding of cultural dynamics provides safety leaders with valuable insights for effective OHS management.

Attitude & Behavior in the Workplace: How Does Tightness/Looseness of Culture Apply?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you find the overall morale of your work team to be positive or negative?

How do you navigate it?

And have you ever considered whether the tightness/looseness in your company culture or societal culture might impact these attitudes?

In recent weeks, we’ve talked about tightness and looseness in culture and how this can affect innovation.

Today, we’ll be looking at another study examining tightness/looseness in the workplace to see how it can benefit morale, management policies, and behaviors.

The Study

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of perceived cultural tightness at the work unit level on individual-level outcomes, both positive and negative.

This understanding can be used to enhance management policies.

The research delves into the influence of perceived T-L culture at the work unit level on various individual-level factors, including stress, intention to leave, organizational deviance, job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Utilizing cross-sectional data gathered from 417 participants across 57 preexisting work units in diverse Italian organizations, participants were presented with 10 statements that they were asked to agree/disagree with.

These statements include:

  • In my work unit, there are many social norms that must be strictly followed
  • In my work unit, if someone acts in an inappropriate way, others will strongly disapprove
  • In my work unit, there are clear and well-defined rules that must be respected
  • In my work unit, it is not allowed to break the existing norms

The results from multilevel analysis indicate a significant and positive association between perceived cultural tightness at the unit level and individual-level job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Conversely, this perceived tightness is significantly and negatively linked to individual-level stress, intention to leave, and organizational deviance. 

These findings imply that fostering a culture of tightness within organizations can positively shape employee attitudes and behaviors.

Confirming the researchers’ hypotheses, the results revealed that perceived cultural tightness at the unit level exhibited a positive association with job satisfaction, effort investment, and organizational commitment. 

Conversely, it displayed a negative association with perceived stress, turnover intentions, and organizational deviance.

Interpreting the Results

Based on the research, this study found that fostering a tight culture could be beneficial for leaders to cultivate positive attitudes within work units. 

However, the suitability of a tight culture depends on individual characteristics and cultural diversity within work units, necessitating attention from HR managers and leaders. 

Achieving a “person-group fit,” where the T-L culture aligns with employees’ mindset and individual characteristics, could promote positive attitudes and behaviors.

Interestingly, in loose societies, organizations may witness more positive workplace attitudes within loose culture work units. 

However, the study did not find significant curvilinear effects, suggesting a need for further investigation, especially in creative, design, or high-tech settings.

Future

The study suggests examining creativity at work, especially given prior results on cultural T-L and creativity.

Exploring moderators of the relationship between tight culture and creativity, such as regulatory focus theory, could provide valuable insights. 

Future research should extend the examination of these effects to the organizational level, considering that work unit culture is influenced by the larger organizational and national culture. 

Investigating interactions between the T-L culture of the country and that of the organization or work unit in promoting workplace outcomes is recommended. 

Overall, these findings contribute to a deeper understanding of T-L effects in real working environments.

The Heart of Our Thinking Style: How Does Our Cultural Thinking Style Impact Our Heart Rate?

Posted on by Leave a comment

How intimately connected are our brains and hearts?

This study on heart rate variability and analytic/holistic thinking styles delves into brain activity and neuro-visceral coordination.

Researchers specifically examined heart rate variability (HRV) in individuals exhibiting analytical and holistic thinking patterns, both during periods of rest and engagement in cognitive tasks.

Here’s what they found.

The Study

While both groups of analytical or holistic thinking styles exhibited similar success rates in resolving the cognitive challenges presented, the analytical cohort displayed prolonged response times compared to their holistic counterparts. 

The tasks presented were meticulously designed to contrast the analytic and holistic conditions, instructing participants to either focus solely on an object or consider the same object in relation to the field it was situated in.

Intriguingly, when participants were tasked with cognitive activities, heart rate complexity, as quantified by sample entropy, was notably higher among those with analytical thinking tendencies. 

However, no such difference emerged when participants were at rest or engaged in a straightforward motor task.

Fascinating Find: Context Means Everything

A particularly interesting finding was observed in analytical individuals when they evaluated objects concerning their relationship with the field, as opposed to objects without such contextual consideration.

During this specific task, analytical participants displayed both longer response times and heightened heart rate complexity. 

In contrast, the holistic group exhibited no significant variations in response times or heart rate complexity across different tasks.

These outcomes underscore that distinctions in individual behavior, including those tied to analytical and holistic thinking styles, are not limited solely to brain activity, as previously established through methods such as fMRI and EEG. 

Instead, this research reveals that these distinctions can extend to neuro-visceral coordination, as evidenced by variations in heart rate complexity.

Existing Elements Versus New

This study suggests that holistic thinkers might rely more on recombination of existing elements in their cognitive processes, while analytical thinkers lean towards generating new elements. 

This distinction in learning processes was mirrored in their heart rate complexities.

The results emphasize the variations between analytic and holistic thinkers in their physiological and behavioral responses, providing fresh perspectives on the interaction between cognitive strategies and physiological coordination during cognitive tasks. 

The authors suggest that further research in this realm could deepen our comprehension of the complex interchange between thought patterns and physiological responses, shedding light on the fundamental drivers of human behavior.

Cultural Mirrors: Behaviors and Self-Views Across Borders

Posted on by Leave a comment

What shapes us?

Self-construal theory (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) poses that our feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are shaped by the tapestry of cultural self-views. 

Two dimensions emerge: the independent and interdependent self-construals.

These construals are the basis for this cross-cultural comparison of behaviors of Japanese, Australian, and Canadian university students.

These three groups were asked to complete an independent and interdependent cultural self construal scale.

After a week, they rated their past behavior.

The findings reveal a compelling pattern.

Cultural Heritage

The interdependent behavior score exhibits a positive correlation with interdependent self-construal scores, while displaying a negative correlation with independent self-construal scores.

Japanese participants, true to their cultural heritage, report a greater inclination toward interdependent behaviors than their Canadian and European Australian counterparts. 

Yet, within the Canadian context, the plot thickens. 

Asian Canadians, with their unique fusion of cultural influences, exhibit a stronger tendency toward interdependence than their European Canadian peers. 

These revelations support Markus and Kitayama’s cultural self-construal hypothesis.

However, there’s a twist. 

The self-view measures, while expected to follow suit, defied the study’s hypothesis. 

European Canadians and European Australians, as anticipated, perceive themselves as more independent than their Japanese counterparts. 

Yet, surprisingly, Canadians lean toward interdependence more than their Japanese counterparts.

However, the study’s authors believe the divergence lies within the very structure of their questionnaires. 

Potential Flaw in the Study

The behavioral measure, rooted in tangible actions and future probabilities, stands as a reflection of actual performance. 

It requires no comparison against others, delivering a raw and authentic portrayal. 

Conversely, the self-construal measures ask participants to assess the extent to which they embody certain tendencies, lacking an objective reference point. 

To top it off, social comparison creeps in, complicating matters.

For instance, in a situation of conflict-avoidance: How can one respond without drawing upon the comparisons embedded within their own social fabric? 

A statement such as “I avoid having conflicts with members of my group” demands a comparison of one’s conflict-avoidance against others’. 

When the behaviors of others differ across cultures, biases infiltrate our cross-cultural means of self-rating scales. 

Such is the nature of the “reference group effect.”.

The Self

Still, the results pertaining to the self-construal scales may indeed reflect genuine perceptions of how the self is viewed in different cultures. 

Levine and colleagues discovered that Westerners showcased greater independence than their East Asian counterparts, though the level of interdependence did not follow the anticipated trajectory.

Japan in a national-level transition is a collision of individualism and collectivism, tradition and modernity. 

While the Japanese continue to behave in interdependent ways, their self-view rebels against the interdependence they embody. 

Do You Know Yourself? Individualist vs. Collectivist Self Insight

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you see yourself?

Can you accurately self-reflect on your traits, behaviors, and ideology and use that knowledge to predict how you might behave in the future?

Do you see yourself clearly? Do you understand why you do the things you do?

And how does your culture influence that self-insight?

Over the next several weeks, we will dive headfirst into the six cultural constructs discussed in last week’s post, the first of which is individualism versus collectivism.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Individualists and collectivists often have different motivations. 

Why?

Because the societies and cultures that form these us provide us with different values, norms, dreams, desires, etc.

Individualist cultures generally prioritize personal achievement and independence.

Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, prioritize cooperation and group harmony.

These diverging priorities lead to diverging motivations.

And, according to the following study, a differing degree of self-insight.

Self-Knowledge & Culture

Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, this study by Balcetis, Dunning, and Miller examines how cultural differences influence people’s ability to predict their own behavior in situations with moral or altruistic overtones. 

The researchers found that collectivists were more accurate in their self-predictions compared to individualists. 

In three different studies, individualists overestimated their likelihood to act generously in situations involving redistributing rewards, donating money, or avoiding rude behavior, while collectivists were generally more accurate in their self-predictions. 

Both groups predicted peer behavior with similar accuracy, but even when samples were taken from the same cultural group, collectivists still demonstrated more precise self-predictions than individualists. 

This suggests that the accuracy of social insight and self-insight can be biased by culturally bound motivations.

Results, Discussed

Why do individualists have a harder time predicting their own behavior? 

One theory is that they focus on themselves too much and assume their behavior will be consistent with their personal traits, leading to inaccurate predictions. 

Individualists who are motivated to emphasize personal uniqueness tend to strive to be better than the group, and thus the best strategy for self-prediction is an internal one based on one’s dispositional nature. 

On the other hand, collectivists who prioritize fitting in with the group may be better at predicting their own behavior because they consider external factors and group behavior.

Collectivists are not motivated to emphasize personal uniqueness and instead strive to fit in with a comparison group, so the best approach to take when making predictions about the self is an external one based on distributional, group-level base rates.

Factors such as face-saving may also moderate these patterns of accuracy. 

This highlights how understanding what constitutes normative social behavior can inform personal self-understanding, but cultural differences may prevent people from knowing themselves precisely because they strive to be different from the norm or typical group member.

Nature Vs. Nurture & Cultural Evolution

Posted on by Leave a comment

Language is culture. Food is culture. Customs are culture.

They are all taught. They are all shaped and communicated across generations through group orientation and primary socialization.

In the book, Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, authors Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd explain that some scientists argue that culture and human behavior cannot be tied to evolutionary theory and biology, quoting the concept of nature versus nurture.

Culture is something created via nurture, while biology is formed by nature.

An individual’s concept of time, her values and customs, her language – all of this is formed by the environment in which she grows up.

It is nurtured.

An individual’s eye color, his height, any genetic disease he may have – all of this is formed by genes.

It is the result of nature. 

Considering this, many argue that evolutionary theory does not come into play in regards to learned behaviors that are shaped by the environment.

As we’ve discussed in many blog posts, cultural behaviors – and most other human behavior – is learned; therefore, the argument is that biology has little to do with creating it.

But Richerson and Boyd suggest that this is not the case, due to the symbiotic nature of genes and their environment.

Genes & the Environment Interact

Genes are not blueprints specifying an organism’s final draft.

Instead, the genetic information stored in an organism interacts with the environment around it while the organism is developing.

As Richerson and Boyd describe it:

“Genes are like a recipe, but one in which the ingredients, cooking temperature, and so on are set by the environment.”

And like any recipe, the traits of the organism will vary based on the differences in the environment.

Some traits are more affected by environment than others.

For instance, most humans develop two ears, despite the environment they’ve grown in, but depending on their nutritional environment during youth, they can develop different growth and health outcomes into adulthood.

Environmental differences can also cause differing behaviors in organisms that are genetically the same.

In such circumstances, the environment is the direct cause of different traits and behaviors.

And because culture is both a part of the environment and a reaction to it, while genes are the evolutionary response to past environments, neither can be removed from the equation.

They are symbiotic.

We’ll take a closer look at the degree to which genes and culture influence human behavior next week.

Religion & Culture: Individual Vs. Cultural Behavior

Posted on by Leave a comment

During the 1994 World Cup, Heineken took center stage…and not in a good way.

In a bid of inclusion, Heineken printed the flag of every country participating in the Cup on its beer bottle.

Unfortunately, this included the flag of Saudi Arabia, which holds a holy creed, “There is no god but the God; Muhammad is the Messenger of the God.”

Islam, of course, forbids alcohol, so the blunder led to major hostilities in the Muslim world.

Heineken was forced to recall and discontinue this promotion, leading to loss of revenue and a bruised public image.

This is one example of what can happen when a business does not account for religious cultural norms.

Personal Faith Versus Cultural Behaviors

Religion influences both individuals and entire cultures.

Individual behavior is impacted by personal belief, while cultural behavior is often impacted by religious practices and norms.

A Christian attends mass every Sunday.

A Muslim prays in the direction of Mecca five times a day.

A Jew dons a Kipa.

All of these are religious behaviors based on individual convictions. That is, they may not impact an entire society or culture.

So, what types of behaviors do influence entire cultures?

One might differentiate between a cultural behavior and a personal one by identifying whether or not religious norms and values impact even non-believers..

Christmas & Easter

One glaring example of this is religious holidays.

Christmas and Easter are holidays that have become ingrained in Western culture; even those who are not of Christian faith celebrate said holidays.

In such cultures, holiday rituals – like decorating a Christmas tree, exchanging gifts, or even attending church – are often observed by those who do not practice religion.

Despite embracing these holiday rituals which are grounded in religion, those same celebrants may not necessarily routinely attend mass or celebrate any other elements of Christianity.

Particularly in Europe, attending church is often a personal conviction, rather than a cultural one.

The South

Visit the South in the U.S., and you might view mass attendance differently.

In some states or regions, going to church is a cultural expectation. It can improve both your social life, your professional life, and even your political life.

In this way, religious behavior is a cultural element in the South, meaning it is conditioned by the culture rather than by religion itself.

Why Must You Know This Distinction

When living and working in a foreign culture, this distinction between religious individual behavior and religious cultural behavior is an important one.

Behaviors based in personal belief can be disregarded without major repercussions; but those based in cultural belief simply cannot.

Preparing to accept, adapt, and adopt pervasive religious cultural beliefs is an important step in cultural integration.

Chrysler & the PT Cruiser: A Cross-Cultural Case Study

Posted on by Leave a comment

A French office is like a royal court; a German office is a well-oiled machine.

As we’ve discussed over the past few weeks, analogies are simple mental models that can aid cross-cultural understanding.

While behavioral changes are inevitable when working a new culture, it can be impractical to completely alter your cultural identity. Analogies provide a rough blueprint so you can play by the rules.

They show you how another system works by transposing that system onto a concept that’s relatable to you.

Analogies aren’t perfect, but they do enable you to better comply with behavior in another culture which will make you more effective as a colleague or manager.

Instead of making decisions from the bias of your own cultural anchor, by understanding the structure of the workplace, you better understand its mechanics and are able to intuit decisions that more appropriately align.

If you don’t have a zookeeper to come up with an analogy for you – like an expat or local who’s worked in a similar cross-cultural capacity – observe the nuances of the culture and create your own simple but clear analogy to use as a mental model.

Here’s one example of how author and professor, Clotaire Rapaille, did just that.

The Culture Code

Having been exposed to numerous cultures in childhood, it was natural for Rapaille to dedicate his life to researching the differences of cultures around the world.

In doing so, he became a personal advisor for CEOs of top global companies and is on retainer for many Fortune 100 companies.

By applying basic analogies in his book, The Culture Code, his concise observations of other cultures make cross-cultural understanding more efficient.

Chrysler Case Study

One case study Rapaille presented in The Culture Code involved the development of Chrysler’s PT Cruiser.

Data from focus groups helped Chrysler analyze and understand the “code” of American car consumers.

What did they find?

  • A car means family: For Americans, the family car is made important during primary socialization. Therefore, the nostalgia of childhood and family are aspects entering into this code.
  • A car means freedom: As with most things American, owning a car in one’s youth means owning freedom in more ways than one. It was found that 80 percent of Americans have their first sexual experience in the backseat of a car.
  • A car means identity: There is a strong correlation between a person’s car and their identity in the U.S. In some ways, you are what you drive.

Considering this data, it’s clear that there’s a powerful emotional relationship between Americans and their cars.

As production planning for the PT Cruiser went into effect, German car manufacturer Daimler-Benz (Mercedes) took over Chrysler.

The German culture’s relationship with their vehicles is much different.

The legal driving age in Germany is 18, so the correlation between youthful freedom (and the nostalgia of a first sexual experience in a car) isn’t as common.

Moreover, German cars are ubiquitous with quality engineering. The focus is on advanced technology rather than on the powerful emotional relationship a consumer might have with their car.

Due to these differences in culture, the PT Cruiser project was not as successful as it could have been.

While the retro and individualistic design of the Cruiser pushed the right buttons for the American consumer, the German executives ignored this, instead focusing on the vehicle’s modest quality engineering.

They assumed the PT Cruiser would be a marketing disaster and consigned its production to a small plant in Mexico.

Because of this decision, supply couldn’t keep up with demand, when the car became a big hit with Americans.

The company could have sold much more in the first year had Daimler-Benz better understood and catered to the culture of the American car market.

This is one example where exploiting a cultural analogy (one shaped by family, freedom, and identity) could have guided decision-making and led a company to greater commercial success.

Seeking the “Why”: How Curiosity Can Assist Cross-Cultural Integration

Posted on by Leave a comment

When working across cultures, stress develops from inconsistencies in values, behaviors, and norms.

Anxiety accompanies culture shock and the changes in behavior required.

Do you handle stress and anxiety well? Then the transition of adapting to your new culture will happen faster and smoother than otherwise.

If you don’t, the next couple posts will show you how to ease the process.

Why Asking “Why?” is Important

A lack of understanding leads to a lack of acceptance.

Without understanding and acceptance, adapting to things you find random or illogical is next to impossible.

That’s why learning the “why” of behavior clears the way for adaption.

Consider you’re the monkey in the zoo. People are chucking peanuts at you, and you have no idea why.

Your handler feeds you often enough, and you’re not hungry. And yet, these humans are surrounding your home and lobbing peanuts at your feet.

“Seems irrational,” you think. “I have all the food I need. Why are these humans throwing more?”

Then again, you might try to see it from the human perspective by asking, “Why?”

Taking a seat to observe the humans, you – the monkey – try to work out the reasoning behind their behavior.

“Hmmm…” you think, “maybe they aren’t throwing peanuts to feed me; maybe they’re throwing them to observe me. I must be boring them by sleeping. They’re trying to encourage me to engage with them.”

As the monkey, through curiosity, you start to understand the rationale of the human; you understand that not all that is unfamiliar is irrational.

Survival Requires Rational Action

Humans are conditioned to act rationally within their environment and time period in order to survive.

Physicist D. Hillis writes in Cause and Effect:

“We like to organize events into chains of cause and effects that explain the consequences of our actions. […] This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The ultimate job of our nervous system is to make actionable decisions, and predicting the consequences of those decisions is important to our survival.”

Since the dawn of time, human beings have been rationalizing.

Society, etiquette, war.

All of these things developed out of some form of rationale or logic.

They were learned.

The question we’ll be asking is how does cultural rationale develop?

And answering that question – and those that follow – starts with curiosity and observation. We’ll talk about that more next week.