Social: 5. The spirit of recovery

In March this year, Japan reeled under devastating blows from the environment. The country’s economic ascendency seemed to dissolve away in an instant before Nature’s fury, causing widespread trauma. Some authors say, however, that Japan’s economic decline began much earlier.

Familiar surroundings disappeared in the earthquake and tsunami.  The toll was at least 5,000 lives along with major infrastructure, leaving people lost and literally cold in the pre-spring weather.  Survivors of the destruction were left to grapple with shock and sudden adversity. Everywhere, writes a friend, almost no electivity, no water, no gas nor gasoline.

The worst environmental calamity in 140 years of that nation’s history has wiped out all traces of development. Even months later, the emotional distress persists, the friend writes:

It passed 3 months since that terrible earthquake attacked us. Since then until now I have been, somehow lethargic and do not want to do anything. But it was beginning of March and still cold and after March, April and May, now we are in June … and seems no changes happen … Northern Part of Japan, focus of the earthquake are still desert. So many people died and still so many missing, so many suffered a lot. On the other hand we are alive and so we have to live, exist…

Lethargy is but a natural reaction, a defence against trauma most unexpected. Many wonder why they have been left alive at all when all they hold dear in life is gone. In addition, looms the threat of a nuclear fallout that could affect generations. But not everything should be blamed on Nature – the lacks of foresight and openness to change are the human contributions to disaster.

Japan became the Asian superpower on the shoulders of its manufacturing prowess over the later half of the twentieth century, while China and India still grappled with burgeoning populations and poverty. Since globalization, however, these other countries appear to have picked up their pace of development, and they are being termed ‘the new economic frontier’.

Globalization showed up the cultural stagnation. The reason for it, as Japanese retail business leader Yanai perceives, is the people’s getting stuck into change-resistant ways. Ethnocentric preferences turn them inwards celebrating sameness, and in the process, gradually they lose adaptability to the outside world that is meanwhile changing differently.  

The business practices, Yanai writes, have also become introspective:

One problem is that we look down on developing countries… we lack the willingness to learn because we have been so successful before…  we are under the illusion that we are rich and superior … in Japan, income has stagnated for many people for a decade or more. Japan is still very comfortable to live in, if you are Japanese. But there’s a difference between being comfortable and being viable.

In the global forum, crucial business decisions rest on cultural awareness. Yet many Japanese company representatives are unwilling to accept that they can and do make mistakes. Similar people issues may have underlain Toyota’s automobile debacle overseas. Their chairman, summoned before a US Congressional hearing last year on the accident involvements of their cars, hung his attribution on employee confusion between sales and quality. Disgruntled consumers however, complained that repeated problem feedbacks to the company fell on deaf ears. 

The general organizational pattern is bureaucratic, built upon traditional ideals of the Japanese culture including dignity, honour, discipline, and strength.  But expectations of social respect in the collectivistic society, often prevents bottom-up feedback and the sharing of information.  The need to preserve hierarchy may then encourage cover-ups, and thus face-saving of the decision-making structure becomes paramount.  The attenuation of creativity may naturally follow, as may the corruption of power and resources. 

Yanai points out:

Most ordinary Japanese industries are bound up by government regulation, or by agreements (tacit or explicit) within the industry. The idea is to create a union or association or something and then use it to start imposing regulation and preventing competition.

In the recent nuclear crisis at Fukushima, the country’s prime minister himself received news about reactor explosions from media reports! In truth, the reactors were able to withstand the earthquake. Against the tsunami however, the safety measures were inadequate, since a deluge of its proportions had never been experienced or even considered before. The plant authorities did not admit the shortcomings, they chose instead to play down the nuclear threat.

Garthwaite writes:

[International agencies] criticized Japanese authorities for "working from a standard nuclear industry playbook” …  calling for "a frank appraisal of what is known and not known and the potential range of damage and consequences … verbal reassurances about low radiation levels stand in stark contrast to repeated increases in the radius of evacuations."

Post-catastrophe, big firms have become pessimistic about Japan’s business conditions. Economic recovery is not expected to be broad-based and household spending has decreased. The country may also face labour shortage because of its social imbalance - the biggest demographic age group being the oldest. In a nation largely of of retirees and disconnected youth, the effects of trauma may well tend to hopelessness.

Back decades in time, in the aftermath of World War II, a proud nation was brought to its knees, with the atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroying Japan socially and economically.  The people’s indomitable spirit of recovery raised the levels of creativity and industry to achieve new heights of economic glory. 

Clearly, the present ‘traditions’ of closedness and ethnocentricity are not part of the cultural inheritance. Perhaps these later additions to social learning were adopted to secure the preeminence of the manufacturing industry against foreign invasions.

Beech writes that imminent labour shortage has forced open to change the most traditional doors – in sumo wrestling. This sport, totally associated with Japanese culture, has been practiced for at least 1,500 years.  Its traditional secrets can be expected to remain within the ethnic fold. And yet, the top spots of the sport in Japan itself have been taken over by gaijans – foreign athletes from Mongolia, Bulgaria, and Estonia. 

Economics again has been responsible for the dearth of local talent. In earlier ages, families sent their children to the sumo “stables” to ensure that they were at least fed. In an affluent nation, hard labour is a thing of the past. The goal becomes college education, and thereby a comfortable life.  With few indigenous aspirants, the ancient sport faced extinction. 

The training schools set higher and more stringent standards for the outsiders. But they found that international wrestlers take all in stride – discrimination, indignities, language, diet, isolation, and socio-cultural hierarchy. The rigours they were subjected to in fact enabled them to come out on top. Sumo wrestling adapted to globalisation, and now enjoys a global following.

Beech writes:

After all, if this quintessentially Japanese sport can accept—and even celebrate—foreigners, perhaps the rest of the nation can do the same in other fields.

Indeed, change is a necessary part of evolution. The world has changed, and today in the global forums, people skills are required to survive and flourish.  Sharing does not diminish knowledge, it expands it. In new millennial businesses, collaboration and partnership are replacing merger and acquisition. 

Perhaps the cultural need of the devastated nation is to revisit the forgotten past, and resurrect the spirit of recovery that once brought the people up from absolutely nothing.  Although their emotional minds are now burdened, the people of Japan need to realize that the opportunity arises to once more resurge from devastation.  And little by little, as my Japanese friend mentions, time and nature heal the sorrow.

References for this post:

1.      Beech, Hannah. “Sumo wrestles with globalization” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. McKinsey & Company. JUNE 2011.   

2.      Garthwaite, Josie. “How Is Japan’s Nuclear Disaster Different?” news.nationalgeographic.com. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Daily News. March 16, 2011. 

3. Kihara, Leika and Ishiguro, Rie. “WRAPUP 2-Japan business mood to recover from post-quake slump-tankan” reuters.com. REUTERS. Jul 1, 2011. 
4.  Yanai, Tadashi. “Dare to err” mckinseyquarterly.com. McKinsey Quarterly. McKinsey&Company. JUNE 2011.  

Problem solving: Integrating differences

Synopsis: People respond not to the external stimulus, but to their perceptual interpretation of its significance.


People tend to perceive the world through cultural frameworks, and accordingly, understand reality.

First language

Thought structures generally develop along cultural lines. People prefer to express themselves in the language they are comfortable thinking in. From their socio-cultural interactions they are actively involved in constructing their knowledge of the world. This is a collective activity. Conceptual schemes are generally bound to background, and so is the language used to transmit them.

In the cross-cultural context, the dependence on a specific first language imposes certain limitations to the perceptive outlook. Thus, meaning is given to the world in a culturally defined sense. People learn to respond to stimuli in characteristic ways, in interactions with the environment and other people. Multilingual abilities enable people to widen their perceptual fields and recognise different cultural contexts and realities.

External and internal

External stimuli motivate people to react with characteristic (learned) behaviour. Some researchers say people respond not to the external stimulus, but to their perceptual interpretation of its significance. The motivation to think and then act beyond the cultural limits comes from within.

Other researchers point out that both external and internal motivations operate in learning. Because it occurs through social activity, learning is tuned to social rewards. However, the drive to learn depends on the individuals themselves.

Cognitive development

They argue that all our cognitive functions – like voluntary attention, logical memory, and formation of concepts - originate from the social interactions we are exposed to as children.

The cultural socializing is the process of being integrated into the prevalent knowledge community. This motivates learning. Guidance of teachers or elders, and peer collaborations influence the understanding of, and the attitudes towards, organized and unorganized routines.

Therefore, development occurs first on the social level, from significant interactions between people. It then proceeds within each person, on the individual level. People eventually learn to think in a particular mode - convergent or divergent - as a result of their actual relationships with others. They also learn to be individualistic or collectivist.

Using resources

Convergent thinking provides technical depth and expertise generally associated with academics. Divergent thinking contributes to people being streetsmart. Globalization brings together people of different cultures, with perspectives developed by such different thought processes.

It also shows up clear distinctions of space and time in people’s minds. Clearly, having the same culture and language helps to understand others and be understood by them. People sharing the same workspace may think, feel and act differently in each situation. But companies and their decision makers sometimes tend to become hidebound over what ‘works’ in the attempt to conserve resources and preserve structure.

How cognitive resources are actually used in problem solving should then depend on circumstances, and not on our comfort zone with one or the other process alone. Sharing perspectives bring to view areas or dimensions that are unusual or being overlooked. For effective problem solving, these group participations are important, even critical for the system’s healthy survival.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

References for ‘Problem solving’ and ‘Talking’ blogposts:

Social Constructivism

Why Vygotsky?

Problem solving: The value of obstacles

Synopsis: ‘Speechifying’ enables understanding relationships between objects and things in the surrounding environment.


Obstacles interrupt the normal flow of activity, and their doing so attracts attention. We get to thinking about situations, and become aware of problems in terms of what was and is or should be. We then devise ways of getting around the impediments.

Thought and word

We initiate activity for survival reasons - to adjust to the environment in a new or different way. The break in pattern is the critical stimulus . It activates the thinking process. We:

We initiate activity for survival reasons - to adjust to the environment in a new or different way. The break in pattern is the critical stimulus that alerts us. It activates the thinking process. We:

a) become aware of the problem, and
b) express becoming aware by speechifying.

Thence in words and opinions, our thoughts become known. The meanings attributed to words or drawn from them lead us to concepts associated with problem solving. The connecting link between thought and word grows and changes as our cognitive processes evolve.

Ways of thinking

People of all cultures are able to think critically about issues and find solutions to them. But in the total group, they generally utilize their faculties in either of two very different ways.

· Convergent thinking: This implies a focus on rules and precedence – a dependence on
methods, and procedures independent of the social context. The same conditions always apply. Answers derive from universal theories in a logical, stepwise manner. Like the algorithms that we can look up in a specific ‘book’ of standard received wisdom, they serve solutions processing information to save time, effort and resources.
· Divergent thinking: Divergent thinking is focused on situated learning. This involves observing and reflecting on each unique circumstance. The thinking process is unstructured, providing spatial associations. Solutions lie within the elements of problem, derived by changes in their existing relationships. The local context is determinant, and problem solutions often innovative.

Nonsense talk?

Critical reasoning in problem solving is thought to develop from childhood ‘nonsense talk’. This is the ‘egocentric speech’ that Jean Piaget identified and earlier considered just transitional to socialized speech.

Social scientists Vygotsky et al now believe that nonsense talk instead relates directly to the problem solving process. Observational studies with children show that they tend to verbalize far more than adults do when faced with a problem. The ‘speechifying’ enables their understanding relationships between objects and things in the surrounding environment.

In the course of social interactions, it is a guide to their activities of:

· releasing tension coming up against difficulties or obstructions to goal achievement
· expressing thought and feeling about the issue or problem
· following up action to resolve the specific difficulty or obstruction
· changing direction of activity, if initial outcomes are unsatisfactory.

Egocentric speech in childhood transforms to inner speech in adulthood. The audible verbalizing simply goes underground. Although we become quiet outwardly, inner speech continues its earlier function within the confines of our mind.

In the process of growing up, most adults learn to contemplate issues and problems in silence. They tend to verbalize only afterwards, to offer specific opinions about the situation arising, or solutions to resolving it.

Cont’d 2…integrating differences