How Cultural Context Shapes the Institutions That Impact Language Teacher Wellbeing
Tammy Gregersen, Baylor University, Texas, USA & University of Kurdistan-Hewler, Iraq
Iman Kamal Ahmed, University of Kurdistan-Hewler, Iraq
Making the Case for the Role of Institutions in Teacher Wellbeing
From its beginning, positive psychology (PP) was thought to be composed of three pillars: positive emotions, positive traits and positive institutions, defining a range of elements from individual emotional experiences (e.g., joy) to more stable personality traits (e.g., character strengths) to broader societal structures (e.g., institutions) that support human flourishing. Wellbeing researchers seek a balanced approach, valuing individual agency while also recognizing the power of external factors. As such, PP advocates recognize that individual and contextual factors interact to jointly influence wellbeing (Boniwell & Hefferon, 2011; Peterson, 2006). The first two pillars have already received much attention, but consideration of the third pillar—institutions—is sadly lacking, so for this reason, this article is dedicated to considering teacher wellbeing in its broader context.
Positive psychologists define institutions, which include schools and workplaces, as organized systems that enable humans to flourish and facilitate positive experiences such as nurturing positive relationships, fostering collective wellbeing, supporting individual growth, creating meaningful engagement and building community strengths. Contrarily, institutions can also create stressors such as heavy administrative loads that wither teachers’ passions, unfavorable classroom conditions that often sideline learner outcomes, and negative societal attitudes towards the teaching profession that result in low pay and diminished respect (Boniwell & Hefferon, 2011; Peterson, 2006). This definition and its accompanying (un)productive aspects include, among other core elements, cultural practices—a critical component for language teachers because the very nature of our craft involves interacting interculturally.
Positive psychologists have researched the role of culture in wellbeing from the outset, and have proposed that institutions both shape and are shaped by their cultural contexts. That is, institutions not only reflect but also influence cultural values and norms by transmitting cultural values, adapting practices to cultural contexts and serving cultural expectations (Boniwell & Hefferon, 2011; Peterson, 2006). To appreciate wellbeing across cultures, we must examine how cultural dimensions shape both individual experiences and institutional approaches to flourishing. To put this discussion into practice, we would like to tap into Hofstede's cultural dimensions framework as we believe it offers valuable insights into how societies differ in their definitions and pursuit of wellbeing. Among Hofstede’s six dimensions are: 1) power distance (e.g., the acceptance of unequal power distribution in society); 2) individualism-collectivism (e.g., priorities assigned to self versus group needs); 3) uncertainty avoidance (e.g., a society’s tolerance of ambiguity); 4) motivation towards achievement and success (e.g., the degree to which a society values competition and achievement versus caring and quality of life); 5) long-term orientation (e.g., whether a society’s focus is on future planning or immediate results); and 6) indulgence-restraint (e.g., the tension societies experience between freedom to enjoy life as opposed to controlling desires) (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Bond, 2012). All dimensions can influence how institutions develop and implement practices aimed at promoting human flourishing.
Institutions, as organized systems, can potentially nurture positive experiences and collective growth, facilitate cultural values and individual wellbeing, and therefore translate societal orientations into concrete practices, policies, and support structures (Boniwell & Hefferon, 2011; Peterson, 2006). For example, for those of us who have had the privilege of working in different cultures, we understand in societies with high collectivism that institutions typically emphasize group harmony and social interconnectedness while in more individualistic cultures, institutions often focus on personal achievement and autonomous goal pursuits. Both authors of this study have worked in both Kurdistan, where solidarity is prized over personal independence and, in the UK, where the rights of the individual are highly respected. The intertwining of cultural dimensions, institutional practices, and wellbeing spins a complex web of influence and when we grasp these connections we can understand why particular wellbeing approaches may work in one cultural context and not in others. When considering how educational institutions approach teaching, learning, and wellbeing, appreciating the different dimensions of culture may help explain why they implement distinct approaches to supporting student and teacher wellbeing. While institutions share common goals of knowledge transmission and development, they also manifest their missions in culturally specific ways that reflect deeper societal values and expectations. Let’s explore the impact of cultural dimensions one by one.
Power Distance
Power Distance is a cultural variable that influences hierarchies, shapes the approaches that leaders take, influences decision-making and determines communication patterns (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Bond, 2012). In high power distance cultures, for instance, schools may typically maintain more hierarchical structures, top-down decision-making, efficiently implemented policies, and clear roles and responsibilities—all of which may affect the quality of teacher-student relationships and classroom dynamics. However, they might also tend to suffer from factors such as limited upward communication, reduced bottom-up innovation, higher stress and anxiety in subordinates, and reduced psychological safety. Conversely, educational institutions in low power distance societies might embrace flatter hierarchies and more collaborative learning approaches which impact critical variables that affect wellbeing. Such institutions would benefit from open communication across levels, greater psychological safety, and more collaborative problem-solving, leading teachers to feel more empowered to innovate, to voice their concerns, and to respond to challenges with greater flexibility. Adversely, however, low power distance at the institutional level might lead to slower decision-making, laborious consensus building and the perpetuation of role ambiguity.
Individual/Collectivism
The individualism-collectivism dimension influences whether a culture’s educational institutions have a group or an individual focus (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Bond, 2012) and can influence how schools structure learning activities, assess performance, and conceptualize educational success. Therefore, this dimension helps shape the types of support systems, the reward structures and the goal-setting approaches that are established. For example, on a positive wellbeing note, an institution with a focus on the individual would probably provide more personalized support and interventions and address specific teacher and learner challenges, while on the other hand, the wellbeing of members of such institutions may suffer from greater competition and isolation among its members and experience uneven resource distribution and/or perceived favoritism. However, a group-focused institution may tend to have greater collective resilience, collaborative support networks and shared responsibility for overall wellbeing, yet such a focus might also tend to ignore an individual’s struggles while applying one-size-fits-all solutions.
Uncertainty Avoidance
The dimension of uncertainty avoidance influences institutional factors such as the flexibility of rules, openness to innovation, risk management and planning processes (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Bond, 2012). The wellbeing benefits of working in an institution in a culture with high uncertainty avoidance may manifest in a high sense of security due to clear procedures and reduced stress owing to detailed planning, well-defined expectations and established routines. Contrarily, high uncertainty avoidance may tend to promote resistance to change and innovation, stress in the face of unexpected situations, and the risk of rigid thinking, suppressed creativity, burnout from perfectionism and excessive bureaucracy. Likewise, institutional wellbeing in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance has the advantage of problem-solving flexibility and comfort with ambiguity, a higher tolerance for innovation and experimental teaching approaches, and less procedural stress. Nonetheless, the wellbeing of institutional members might suffer from limited structure, inconsistent practices and unclear expectations that potentially leads to organizational chaos. In particular, teachers and learners who need clarity may feel greater anxiety.
Motivation Towards Achievement and Success
The degree to which a culture is motivated toward achievement and success may help determine critical wellbeing elements such as an educational institution’s work-life balance policies and its value system (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Bond, 2012). In those cultures heavily geared toward achievement and success, for example, teachers and learners might experience clear achievement metrics, a competitive drive, results-focused outcomes and an emphasis on excellence. On the other hand, they might be more prone to negative wellbeing factors such as high stress levels, performance anxiety, unequal work-life balance, a disregard for emotional needs, a focus on grades over learning, and high burnout rates. Using the same logic, for members of educational institutions in cultures that tend toward cooperation, their wellbeing will likely find equalized work-life balance, a focus on student wellbeing, a collaborative environment, a supportive atmosphere and a place where emotional intelligence is valued. Contrarily, members of such cultures may experience the lack of a competitive edge, slower decision-making, and the risk of reduced motivation and lower standards.
Long vs. Short Term Orientation
The cultural dimension of short vs. long-term orientation can affect institutional welling in the form of shaping strategic planning, influencing the allocation of resources, determining the kind and degree of sustainability, and the preservation of traditions (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Bond, 2012). For those cultures whose practices and norms are oriented toward the long term, positive wellbeing outcomes might be seen in their strategic planning, investment for the future, sustainable practices, and continuous improvement. Contrarily, such an orientation may result in slower visible outcomes, unmet immediate needs, and over-analysis that can delay necessary changes. Wellbeing in cultures with short-term orientation may benefit from quick responses to issues, immediate problem-solving, visible results, and clear short-term goals that can be adapted to current needs. Alternatively, educational institutions in such cultures may lack strategic vision, invoke merely temporary solutions, maintain unsustainable practices and be reactive rather than proactive which could lead to ignoring long-term impacts.
Indulgence vs. Restraint
How an institution shapes its reward systems, approaches wellbeing, and determines work-pleasure balance are all factors that the cultural dimension of indulgence vs. restraint can affect (Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Bond, 2012). Indulgent cultures, for example, might be characterized as having elevated job satisfaction, encouraged creative expression, flexible learning/teaching environments, and engaged students; yet, they may lack important educational values such as discipline, focus, academic rigor, attendance and fiscal responsibility. In contrast, restrained cultures might be distinguished by their strong discipline, clear rules, efficient use of resources, high achievement and consistent attendance. Not all is advantageous, though, as such cultures may also induce high stress levels and burnout, suppressed creativity and enjoyment and impose rigid systems.
Educational institutions are critical liaisons between cultural values and educational outcomes--including wellbeing. Identifying cultural-institutional dynamics becomes particularly relevant as education worldwide faces shared challenges such as teacher burnout, student stress, and rapidly changing technological demands. The way in which educational institutions respond to these challenges reflects their cultural embeddedness and highlights the need for culturally informed approaches to institutional wellbeing. The values that a culture cherishes are not right or wrong; better or worse—they are simply different, and understanding how the six aforementioned dimensions of culture operate in the sphere of institutional wellbeing may give language teachers insight into how best to move forward in their journey toward making their schools and universities a place where everyone flourishes.
References
Boniwell, I., & Hefferon, K. (2011). Positive psychology: Theory, research and applications. Open University Press.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Minkov, M., & Bond, M. H. (2012). Cross-cultural analysis: The science and art of comparing the world's cultures. SAGE Publications.
Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. Oxford University Press.
Tammy Gregersen is Associate Professor of Linguistics at Baylor University (USA). She co-authored ten books, published extensively in peer-reviewed journals and contributed numerous chapters in anthologies on teacher wellbeing, individual differences, teacher education, language teaching methodology, positive psychology and nonverbal communication in language classrooms.
Iman Kamal Ahmed holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Birkbeck, University of London, and is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics/TESOL at the University of Kurdistan Hewlêr. Her research focuses on emotional aspects of second language acquisition, especially how emotions and flow states influence classroom learning.