Culturally Conceived Systems for Healthy Groups: Western and Eastern Paradigms in Contrast

by Jacob Wesseling

My wife and I have been working in Central Asia since 2013 on a multicultural team. Since the team’s inception, it has at one time or another been composed of members with formative backgrounds from countries as diverse as America, China, Great Britain, Guinea, Italy, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Egypt, a Central Asian country, and some with a mix of the aforementioned. 

My wife and I have been working in Central Asia since 2013 on a multicultural team. Since the team’s inception, it has at one time or another been composed of members with formative backgrounds from countries as diverse as America, China, Great Britain, Guinea, Italy, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Egypt, a Central Asian country, and some with a mix of the aforementioned. 

This schematic is a personal attempt to better understand situations and group dynamics that have been perplexing at best, and leading to judgment and conflict at worst. It began when, having been taught Patrick Lencioni’s triangle for healthy team function, I began to question its application to ‘Eastern’ cultural perspectives. I sought to develop a ‘Lencioni-like’ triangle that better depicted how ‘Eastern’ perspectives conceive of group health. My sincere hope is that a correct understanding of how our systems work differently will lead to increased grace and the possibility of greater understanding and practical solutions when working together across cultural divides.

Disclaimer

Below I want to objectively describe what I have seen and experienced rather than making value judgments such as right/wrong or biblical/unbiblical. If any value judgment is embraced, it is to say that both paradigms can be defended as ‘good’ and ‘biblical’. They differ only in as much as they do not choose the same set of values as their defining, foundational principles. Note also that the words ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ are deliberately  placed in quotes in order to be honest about the danger of over-generalizing  in any attempt to analyze large swaths of humanity.

Note on how to read the diagrams (below): The material inside of each triangle depicts that system’s rubric for a healthy group. The triangle is meant to be read from bottom to top—that is, from its foundational principle up to its ultimate result. The idea is that from bottom to top, each value naturally leads to the next until the ultimate goal of the system is achieved. In like manner, the red “” arrows are a depiction of the system when it is not working properly or failing. The red boxes can be read horizontally (as being the opposite of the value that shares its level) or vertically, showing a logical progression from bottom to top like that of the triangle.

Observations from the Model

The source of individual identity differs in the two systems. Notice that in the ‘Eastern’ Triangle Perspective (ETP), the concept of individual identity is hemmed in by collective considerations both below and above. From below, personal identity is assigned by one’s place in relation to authority and social hierarchy. From above, the individual uses his or her identity to reinforce social norms and the harmony of the group. 

By contrast, in the ‘Western’ Triangle Perspective (WTP), the location of personal identity is not stated explicitly. But upon further inspection, it can be located in the very foundation of the triangle and permeates every level following. For example, as one shares vulnerably to gain trust in the foundational level, he or she shares personal strengths and weaknesses. 

Who does he or she consult to learn his or her strengths and weaknesses? Well, the person consults him or herself. In other words, individual identity is self-defined to a much higher degree in the WTP. In like manner, the following level, “Healthy Conflict,” is designed to allow each individual, regardless of rank, to passionately share his or her personal thoughts and opinions as a prerequisite for buy-in. 

Again, “Commitment” was only possible because each individual was heard. Now, each individual can be kept “Accountable”, since each committed individually. It isn’t until the pinnacle of the WTP triangle that we see a group focus (“Shared Outcomes Based Result”), whereas the group focus in the ETP was present from the very beginning.

The function of a group and how it is conceived differs in the two systems. Notice that in the WTP, a group is principally a means to an end. This end is the accomplishment of a tangible task or ‘outcomes based result.’ By contrast, in the ETP, there is a sense in which a harmonious group is an end in itself, since collectivist cultures consider preservation of the group or tribe a top priority. This, of course, does not deny that ETP groups do indeed work together to accomplish meaningful tasks and remarkable results.

In teams or groups that have members represented by both triangles, opportunities for perplexity, misunderstanding, and conflict will be plentiful. In fact, to an almost comedic degree of mirroring, it is likely that when the WTP is activated, members of the ETP will feel their “Danger Zone” progression activated and vice versa. 

For example, as the WTP begins building trust through vulnerability, members of the ETP may likely have their “Authority Vacuum” activated as group members seem self-absorbed in sharing about themselves, and no clear, respected leader is apparent. As the WTP begins engaging in a robust conflict of ideas, ETP members may have “Social Disintegration” activated as social order and hierarchy give way to apparent chaos, arrogant self-promotion, and petty disagreements. 

At the WTP’s greatest moment of commitment and resolution, ETP members may feel the disorientation of “Loss of Identity,” struggling to understand who is in charge and how the social rules operate. As the WTP launches into the confrontation associated with keeping others accountable, ETP members feel vulnerable to embarrassing “Loss of Face” as group members call one another out on things. 

Finally, as WTP members are hailing the wonders of their final team result, ETP representatives may very well feel like the integrity and harmony of the group failed, resulting in apparent “Civil War” at the hands of warring would-be leaders. In a similar display of parallelism, as the ETP focuses attention on his or her foundational value, respecting and honoring the leader, it is possible that members of the WTP will experience such a dynamic as being inauthentic, overly formal, and ingratiating.

As the ETP settles in comfortably to his or her social structure and hierarchy, the WTP may judge the group for embracing a form of “Artificial Harmony” that rejects the perceived need for blunt reality and tell it like it is. At an ETP member’s moment of greatest self-understanding in how he or she fits into the social network, a WTP member may feel great ambiguity regarding what the group actually exists to accomplish. 

As ETP members pursue social norms, honoring superiors and avoiding loss of face, WTP members may interpret what they see as low standards of work, misplaced priorities, or even an unjust system of rewards and punishments based on relationships instead of competency. Finally, at the very moment that the ETP is celebrating group preservation and unity, WTP members are ready to go solo and pursue personal interests, having had enough of what they perceive as ‘selling out to the political game.’ And these observations are just the tip of the iceberg in regard to how the ETP will interpret and react to the WTP, and vice versa. We could go into much greater detail at any level of the triangles.

Conclusions

Perhaps the most important conclusion to mention has to do with what we are not concluding. We are not concluding that WTP people and ETP people cannot or should not work together. What we are gently suggesting is that the two systems will not work well together employed in the same group, especially if members are not aware that two systems are being employed and how those systems differ (intimate knowledge of the two triangles and how they interact with one another). With this in mind, three suggestions can be offered with brief reference to possible weaknesses:

First, members of a group should be chosen in such a way that it is obvious what system will be employed. In other words, multicultural oversaturation should only be pursued with great caution and awareness of the potential risks. I like to illustrate it this way: If a group is composed of five American units and one Vietnamese unit, it is fairly obvious what system will be employed. If, on the other hand a team is composed of two Canadian units, one Kenyan unit, one Vietnamese unit, and one Jordanian unit, it will be unclear what system is being employed, and each unit will likely default to the system that is most natural to them individually. 

This becomes even more problematic when group members are unaware of or unwilling to talk about the different systems being employed. Possible challenges related to limiting multicultural oversaturation include providing appropriate pastoral care to the unit(s) whose indigenous system is not the system of the group as a whole. These units will likely experience greater levels of stress and exhaustion than the members whose personal system matches that of the group. A potential criticism of limiting multicultural oversaturation would be that such a group does not adequately reflect the ideal of unity in Christ’s diverse body.

Second, groups, regardless of their level of multicultural saturation, could consciously choose what system will be employed and work hard to conduct group affairs in harmony with the system. In this vein, organizations as a whole could also play an oversight role, examining both systems and deciding which will be employed throughout their organization. Having decided, organizations could employ policies that ensure accountability to ongoing growth and maturity within the chosen system. The challenge of this approach is that despite group or organizational policies, people’s backgrounds and preferences are stubborn and often unconscious, so expectations for conformity should not be particularly high.

Third, groups and organizations could simply take the educational strategy, offering training, conferences, and workshops to their teams in order to promote greater awareness, understanding, and grace. The challenge of this approach is the same as the aforementioned. Our backgrounds and preferences go to the very root of our upbringing and identities; and what was a wonderful epiphany at a conference can easily revert to life lived at an instinctual level when it comes to the foundational beliefs we assume our colleagues to embrace and cherish.

Fourth, groups of great cultural diversity may operate healthiest in a context where members are able to commit to a broad overarching vision while being given considerable freedom to implement individual strategies and day-to-day operations. Admittedly, this strategy could be criticized for not representing a real group. A charge might also be made that the focus on individual methods biases it toward a ‘Western’ approach.

Finally, our ever shrinking, globalized world teeming with multicultural communities and work groups is in desperate need of greater understanding and dialog on this level of deeply-held cultural beliefs, systems, and behaviors. Correct models need to be developed and practical solutions offered to problems that emerge as the rich and varied tapestry of God’s imago Dei interacts with itself. 

It should be noted that well-known personality and strengths tests are wonderful and helpful, but insufficient in the realm of cultural differences because an ETP ‘melancholy’ is fundamentally different from a WTP ‘melancholy’ and an ETP ‘INFP’ is fundamentally different from a WTP ‘INFP’ and an ETP ‘maximizer’ is fundamentally different from a WTP ‘maximizer’. We have spent extensive time and money in organizations on the personality discussion over the past thirty years. In the twenty-first century, in an increasingly globalized world, can we afford not to invest at least the same amount of money and energy in learning how to thrive in unavoidably multicultural contexts? Likely, the answer is no.

. . . .

Jacob Wesseling and his family have been serving in Central Asia for the past four years. He is passionate about lost sheep discovering the shepherd who knows them by name. His prayer is that the way we organize groups never becomes a stumbling block to our highest calling.

EMQ, Vol. 53, No. 3. Copyright  © 2017 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  aAll rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.