Author Archives: M.A.D. LIGAYA
On Evaluating Teachers’ Performance
Evaluating teacher’s performance is part and parcel of the educational process. Teaching and learning are the two major interdependent operations of that process that also involve two interdependent players – the teacher and the student. The evaluation of the performance of teachers is intended to ensure that teaching is performed effectively, resulting in the achievement of the goals of learning.
Evaluation of teacher’s performance can either be formative or summative. While both are performed for the purpose of improving the teaching-learning process, they are different in terms of objectives.
Formative evaluations are intended to give teachers information or feedback to help them improve their pedagogical skills. It can be done at any time throughout a school term to monitor what teachers do in the classroom in order to identify where they are good at and where they need improvement.
Conversely, summative evaluations are done to appraise teacher’s performance, not for the purpose of giving them feedback to improve their delivery of instruction but for measuring the effectiveness of their teaching methods and strategies. The main objective is to determine if the teacher’s pedagogical skills measure up with the institution’s standards.
While formative evaluation is used by academic institutions to monitor (and promote) the progress or growth of the teacher, summative evaluation is carried out by school administrators in order to have a basis for employment-related decisions like promotion and continuation of employment.
Results of the summative evaluation of the performance of teachers determine whether they get promoted, given tenure, or allowed to continue to work in the academic institutions that employ them.
In the university where I am currently working, topnotchers in teachers’ evaluations are even given cash incentives. Unfortunately, failure to get the required passing scores in the annual evaluation of teachers’ performance would mean not being given a contract extension for the following school year. That is for non-tenure foreign professors like me.
Because the results of summative evaluation affect the employment status of teachers, it is important that heads of schools ensure that this analysis of teachers’ performance is valid and reliable. The evaluation instruments created should be able to measure what they intend to measure. The items/criteria included in the instrument need to be authentic measures of the pedagogical skills of teachers and their professionalism.
The appraisal of the performance of teachers is usually done through actual class observation. Additionally, checklists are used to determine teachers’ compliance with administrative requirements.
It is important that people designated to carry out the evaluation should be competent and trained to appraise teachers’ performance. This assertion brings to the fore the question of including results of students’ appraisal of their teachers’ performance in summative evaluation.
I think including the scores of students’ evaluations makes the results of summative evaluations less valid and reliable. Why? Students are not expected to be as objective as they ought to be when appraising the performance of their teachers. Even if teachers are pedagogically sound and professional in handling their jobs, if students don’t like their styles, they will get low scores. There exists a possibility that some students, when they perceive their teachers to be strict and unfriendly, they will use teachers’ evaluation as a means to get even. It is even likely that students won’t take seriously the evaluation not bothering to carefully read the items in the instrument.
Students have no training in pedagogy for them to understand what things to consider when evaluating the performance of their teachers. Therefore, their performance appraisal should be treated only as a formative evaluation intended to give teachers feedback or information that will guide them in improving their craft. Excluding their scores from the summative evaluation eliminates any bias that could potentially impact the employment-related decisions that school administrators make at the end of a school term.
In a tertiary institution where I used to teach, class observations are done 5 times in a semester. Three of those are called pop-in visits (unannounced), where the evaluator stays for a few minutes, targeting only a specific area of the lesson plan. The other two are formal visits where the one doing the appraisal of the teacher’s performance stays from the beginning up to the end of the class. One of those formal visits is “announced,” and the other is “unannounced.” The teachers are informed at the beginning of a school term that those pop-in visits and formal class observations will be done at any time.
I believe that the results of class observations are more valid and reliable if they are done “unannounced.” School administrators get to see the “real performance” of teachers when the latter have no inkling as to when they are going to be observed in their classes.
When Students Don’t Learn
One morning, I witnessed how an English teacher masterfully discussed the intricacies of the English language. It would take me a paragraph or two to explain in detail the things he talked about. Let me just say that he is every inch a native English speaker. His knowledge of the phonemes, morphemes, lexemes, syntax, and context is impeccable. He dissected the language so skillfully, and the way he did it almost made me envious. I was reduced to being a listener, uncertain whether I just wanted to make sure not to miss anything new (something I don’t know yet) from what he was saying or I had nothing more to share because he had everything covered about what he was discussing. I wasn’t really sure what prevented me from saying anything. Maybe I was intimidated by his mastery of grammar, semantics, and pragmatics, or I did not like to gatecrash into his moment to showcase his brilliance. Stealing someone’s thunder is not my cup of tea.
That teacher held court in his impromptu lecture. He had the attention of everybody present. It was difficult to judge the intentions of my colleagues whenever they (unsolicitedly) shared their expertise like that. Was it to impress upon us (their co-teachers) that they know that much, or they simply would (good-naturedly) like to help us learn more about the subject (English) we’re teaching.
Later that day, I changed upon a student who had attended my English class in a previous semester. That student was one of the best in my class. Like me, he was heading out of the campus. After the exchange of greetings, I asked, “Who’s your English teacher this semester?” The student had already started responding before I recalled that I had previously made a promise to myself never to ask any of my former students that question for the reason that a few of my previous attempts led to the opening of “a can of worms.”
But it already happened – I asked that stupid question again.
The student named the teacher – he was the one I heard deliver an impromptu lecture about the English language earlier that day. After that, the student heaved a sigh and said, “We could hardly understand what he was teaching.”
I looked at him seriously, and all I could say was, “Really!?”.
He nodded and said, “He is also very serious.”
Before he could open that “can of worms,” I told my former student to give that teacher more time to adjust since the semester is still a long way to go. Then, I quickly redirected our conversation to another topic after that.
What’s amazing is the occurrence – of one day hearing a colleague deliver a brilliant impromptu lecture, but later that same day (or within the week), I would meet one of his students (who used to be my student also) claiming that they, in the class, could hardly understand what he is teaching – did not happen only once. If my memory serves me right, that’s the fourth time.
It finally made me reflect. That’s the reason I wrote something about it.
It made me wonder (again) how my former students rate my performance as a teacher. What do they think (and how they feel) about me as their teacher? What would they say to a colleague or fellow students when asked about me?
Students evaluate the performance of their teachers every semester. It’s hard to tell how reliable and valid the results of such evaluation are. Whether or not the results are a reflection of the true professional and personal qualities of the teachers is a matter of debate.
But valid or not, reliable or otherwise, it’s hard to ignore what students say about the performance and behavior of their teachers. Teachers get to read what students write in their evaluations. They could either agree or disagree with the results of their evaluation. But what the teachers would not know is what students say about them in informal discussions. Only the most naïve among teachers don’t know that students talk about their teachers.
In gatherings, teachers talk (or should I say gossip) about their students – their performance and behavior in the class. Conversely, students do the same. They talk (or gossip) about their teachers. There are only two possibilities – they either praise or curse their teachers.
One of the most unacceptable things that students could say about a teacher is that they do not (or they could hardly understand) what he/she is teaching.
Witnessing firsthand an English teacher discuss with ease the complexities of the English language and hearing a student claim that he and his classmates could hardly understand what that teacher was teaching is quite paradoxical.
So I asked myself this question that night – Which is true… my impressions about that English teacher or that of his students?
What could have gone wrong?
My former student said that their current English teacher is very serious. Is that the problem – good rapport does not exist between him and the students? It is no secret that a teacher’s personality is correlated to students’ academic performance.
I tried to think of other reasons.
Then I recalled my teaching demonstration when I was applying for a job right after my graduation. When the high school principal called me to her office to discuss the results, she told me I did great. But she said there was a problem – I explained things in a way that only students enrolled in a graduate program could understand.
Could that be the reason?
If that teacher carried out discussions in the class in the same way he explained the grammar topic to us in that gathering earlier that day then that exactly is the problem. You cannot discuss a grammar point with students trying to learn the language the way you would with teachers teaching that language. I think that is not rocket science.
There are two things I learned before I officially began my teaching career – adapt my strategies and materials to students’ levels and simplify my language.
The problem is there are teachers who have a “one-size-fits-all” mentality, thinking that educational processes and approaches to teaching and learning are standard and cannot be tailored to meet individual needs. They wouldn’t buy into the idea of differentiated learning and teaching.
They will never accept responsibility when their students don’t learn.
Their standards are as immovable and high as Mt. Everest. The students have no choice but to climb that “Mt. Everest.”
For them, it’s the fault of the students when they fail.
K-DREAM
Korean motifs are slowly replacing American imprints in our culture as Filipinos. More and more of my compatriots say annyeonghaseyo instead of hello and gamsahamnida instead of thank you. Oppa has become a popular endearment for women calling their boyfriends or husbands and telling them saranghaeyo instead of “I love you.” We Filipinos are so enamored of K-pop and K-drama, which have greatly influenced our lives. The youngsters, in particular, embrace the music of their K-pop idols and dress the way they do.
In my country, especially in urban areas, restaurants offer samgyeopsal, bibimbap, Korean ramen, and other famous Korean dishes. Products made in South Korea are flooding our supermarkets and grocery stores. It is no longer surprising to find soju sold in sari-sari stores and shared by Filipinos when they dine and wine.
Should we be concerned? Are we losing our Filipino identity? We’re not. Our culture is just entering a new phase of development. Remember that culture is dynamic, never static. It evolves continuously.
It is common knowledge that the ongoing assimilation of Korean influences into our culture was engendered by Hallyu. This phenomenon depicts the popularity of South Korean pop culture, not only in our country but globally. Yes, we’re not the only ones obsessed with Korean cultural content. It was reported that by 2022, there were more or less 177 million Hallyu fans worldwide.
Hallyu is one of the 26 Korean words added to the Oxford English Dictionary. When translated to English, the word literally means Korean Wave. With the way that this cultural phenomenon struck the world, tsunami, instead of the word wave, would have been a better term. But tsunami is a Japanese word, and given the history of these countries, the word may not rhyme politically.
The gigantic waves of music, TV shows, and movies from the southern portion of the Korean peninsula reached our shores at the turn of the 21st century. Since then, our TV stations have regularly aired many Korean dramas dubbed in Filipino. Korean movies with English or Filipino subtitles are shown in Philippine movie theatres. Magazines and the entertainment sections of newspapers regularly featured K-pop artists and other Korean TV and movie personalities. Before we knew it, the Korean brand had already profoundly penetrated the Filipino consciousness.
Admittedly, I knew little about South Korea before the Korean Wave came. I remember checking the encyclopedia for information about the Korean War when I took World History in college. At that time, I was researching wars America fought for an article I wrote for our school paper, and the Korean War from 1950 to 1953 was one of them. Then, I discovered that our country sent troops to help South Koreans ward off the Communist invasion from north of its borders.
Without the help of the United Nations’ international forces, the Korean peninsula might have fallen under Communist rule. The thought that soldiers from my country helped in not allowing that to happen made me feel proud. Imagine this – had it been Kim Jong-un ruling the whole of Korea now (and his father and grandfather in the past), there would have been no Hallyu to talk about. Instead of K-pop and K-drama, the hot topics could have been K-missile and K-nuke.
Just imagine how dreadful a picture of the war-torn Korean peninsula the things I read about it created in my mind. It was horrible, to say the least. The narrative of the death and destruction was a clear indictment of the futility of war. Those three years were perhaps one of the darkest chapters in the history of South Korea. It was comparable to the three years that my country was under Japanese occupation during the Second World War as well as the period between 1898 and 1901 when the Filipino revolutionaries helplessly fought a war against the much superior American forces who grabbed the Philippine archipelago from the Spaniards.
But before completing my university education, I had another chance to read more about South Korea. That was when the country hosted the 1988 Summer Olympics. The sporting event put the land south of the 38th parallel line all over the news. It triggered my curiosity, prompting me to check not anymore the pages in the encyclopedia about the Korean War but also books written about the country, magazine articles featuring it, and the newspapers covering the Olympics at that time.
I saw a country different from what those pages about the Korean War created in my mind. I discovered that the nation called the “Land of the Morning Calm” rebounded from the horrors of the Korean War and eventually became very progressive. Then I wondered at that time and asked – “What did the South Koreans do that enabled them to, like the legendary Phoenix, rise from the ashes of a horrendous war and even become only the second country in Asia to host the world’s biggest summer sporting event?” Why could they afford to host such an event that would cost them millions and millions (if not billions) of dollars?
My perception of South Korea changed overnight from a country impoverished, war-stricken, and divided into modern and progressive. The pity I felt for the Koreans when they were ravaged by the war during the early 1950s was replaced by amazement and… envy.
As the years passed, I learned more and more about South Korea through traditional media and the Internet, which eventually became more accessible than when I was a university student. I got to hear more and more Korean music and see more and more Korean dramas.
I will never forget how in 2006, the Korean drama Jewel in The Palace would make me stop whatever I do at night to ensure I see all of it. I was so glued to it. Is it because of the story or the pretty face of Lee Young-ae, the actress who played the role of Jang Geum (the drama’s lead character)? I really don’t know. It may be the setting. I am a student of World History, and the story provides a glimpse of how life was in the Korean peninsula during the Chosun dynasty. The Koreanovelas “Stairway to Heaven,” “Lovers in Paris,” “Winter Sonata,” and “Baker King” were the ones that introduced me to contemporary life and society in South Korea. The first Korean movie I watched was “Please Teach Me English.” The supervisor of the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) certificate program, which I attended in 2009, recommended it.
These cultural imports from South Korea made me want to visit the country like many Filipinos. I wanted to visit the places in the country that I could only see on TV programs and movies. I wanted to visit Seoul and go to Gangnam and Myeongdong. I wanted to have a summer vacation on the island of Jeju. I wanted to try soju and maekju, and the combination of the two – somaek. I wanted to taste kimchi and eat Korean dishes prepared and served by Korean chefs. I wanted to try tteokbokki, pyo haejangguk, and kalguksu, together with plenty of banchan (side dishes) in a restaurant in South Korea, not in Korean restaurants or the mall’s food courts in my native land. I wanted to meet actual Korean people and mingle with them. Once, I even jokingly told a friend I wanted to have a Korean girlfriend. In short, I desired to have an authentic Korean experience. My K-dream – “Korean dream” – is taking shape and getting embedded in my consciousness.
That urge strengthened when I decided to take the TESOL certificate program. That was when I watched my first Korean movie, the one I previously mentioned – “Please Teach Me English.” South Korea was mentioned by the program coordinator as one of the countries considered the premiere destination for ESL teachers. The said movie gave me a glimpse of the state of English education in that country. There’s a scene in that movie where Young-ju, the lead character played by the actress Lee Na-young, could be seen eating a page of an English dictionary, believing that it would improve her vocabulary. That part of the movie embodies how much of a big deal it is to learn English for South Koreans.
Thus, since teaching abroad is an option in the career path I set for myself, should I have the opportunity to teach overseas, why not in South Korea? My K-dream suddenly evolved, and I no longer just wanted to have an authentic Korean cultural experience but to work there as an English teacher.
Then I did what I had to do for that dream to come true. I completed my training in TESOL, and I left no stone unturned. I searched the Internet for job openings for ESL teachers in South Korea. At that time, I was also suffering from job burnout. I got physically and emotionally exhausted from my job as a school administrator, and I wanted to return to being a plain teacher.
Longevity: The Race To 100
Longevity should be viewed as a product of the efforts of people to reach their full potential. To say that living as long as people can is the result of them giving their physical bodies the maximum care is tantamount to considering a person as a mere physical specimen. A person has not just a body but a mind and a spirit. In psychology, an individual is considered a physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual being. I believe that only when people can strike a perfect harmony among these different aspects of being can they hope to have a shot at longevity. How long do you want (or expect) to live?
Teachers, Leadership Styles, and McGregor’s Theories X and Y Assumptions
Managing people, either in academia or industry, is difficult and complicated. It requires not only mental and emotional competence but also toughness. It is an enterprise not meant for the fainthearted and weak-kneed.
Managers need both smarts and grit. They need to be astute and their patience boundless. Perhaps the trickiest part of the job of those in supervisory positions is as leaders, they have to determine which leadership style is most applicable given the kind of people they are leading and the nature of the business they have.
Leadership theories abound, and before managers, supervisors, or administrators are catapulted into the position of head of the organization, they might already have a style that is inherent in them and framed by their education and personal experiences.
As leaders, they could be any of what Koontz and Weilhrich in “Behavioral Theories” describe as autocratic, democratic, or free-rein leaders (laissez-faire). Those in the position of leadership (according to the said authors) have the following options: maintain strong control over their subordinates and lead using their ability to withhold or give rewards and punishment; consult with the people they are leading on proposed actions and decisions and encourage participation from them; or use their power very little, if at all, giving subordinates a high degree of independence in their operations.
Which of the aforementioned styles is most effective is hard to determine. Those espousing the “Contingency Theory” claim that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. They add that the optimal course of action depends on the internal and external situation. This principle guided me when I was given the opportunity to lead.
In my experience as a school administrator (1994-2012), I figured there was no one-size-fits-all kind of leadership. I realized that the way to supervise people is a decision that designated leaders could arrive at only when they assume office. They may have a blueprint for leading when they take the reins of leadership in their organization, but such is not set in stone. Whether as leaders they become autocratic, democratic, or free rein depends largely on the kind of people being led.
Douglas McGregor, in his Theory X and Theory Y, presented two opposing perceptions about employees. Theory X assumes that employees inherently dislike work, avoid responsibilities, and seek formal direction and should be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment. Conversely, in theory, Y, they (employees) are viewed quite the opposite. They need not be controlled and closely supervised because they love work, exercise self-direction and self-control, accept and even seek responsibility, and make innovative decisions.
When leaders have already determined under which set of perceptions the people they are supervising belong, they begin to devise what they think is the best way to lead them.
Experts in human behavior say that people working in organizations are not necessarily either one type or the other. They said that between the two extremes, there could be a combination of behaviors. Thus, leaders need to be careful not to implement policies and operate in response only to either (or both) of those two assumptions about employees. They need to be flexible.
The best leaders are those who can devise a way to have a complete inventory of the different personalities of people in the organization they are running and calibrate their approaches to leadership to the categories of personalities that would emerge from the inventory. That, of course, is easier said than done, especially if they are overseeing a big group, company, or association.
What about teachers? Generally speaking, where should teachers be classified – under theory X or theory Y?
It is hard to imagine teachers disliking their work and avoiding responsibilities. To be in charge of the teaching-learning process is not a walk in the park. It demands the highest form of professional competence, which means doing a lot of work and accepting a lot of responsibilities as well. The list of the things that teachers are expected to perform is long – prepare lessons; construct exams, mark tests, quizzes, and assignments; prepare reports; attend seminars and trainings; and keep abreast with the current innovations, including using technology in instruction. The teachers’ primary function, of course, is instruction. If they are in universities, they are also expected to research and get involved in community extension programs.
That’s a lot of things to do for teachers, and with their plates that full, the teachers cannot possibly be theory X type. When they embrace the profession, they know the kind of work they are doing. They know that they don’t stop working after class hours. Teachers always walk an extra mile or two.
The prevailing perception about teachers is that they are consummate professionals – embodying the theory Y assumptions.
Teachers are responsible and independent. They don’t need to be micromanaged because they are happy to work on their own initiative, and their strong sense of professionalism and self-motivation always lead to the successful completion of their tasks and responsibilities and strict adherence to policies and guidelines. They also need not be told what to do because they have a strong sense of self-direction and self-control.
Are these assumptions about teachers true?
I have been in academia for more than 30 years as a teacher. I worked with different kinds of teachers across demographics – age, gender, race, education, religion, and philosophical persuasion – as a colleague and administrator (for 18 of those years). Based on my experiences (particularly here in South Korea, where I have been teaching since 2013 and was briefly a head professor for 3 semesters), I can say that the prevailing perception about teachers is untrue.
Some teachers are theory X type, some theory Y, and some are in-between.
Most of the teachers I worked with (as a teacher) and supervised (as a school administrator before) were committed to professionalism. Yes, that’s MOST at the beginning of the previous sentence. I would be lying if, instead of MOST, I used ALL. The worst assumption that school owners and administrators could make is that “all teachers conduct themselves within the bounds of professionalism.” Teachers are very much similar to other individuals in any profession. They vary in their behavior and adherence to professional standards. Even in the academe, there is always a possibility of unprofessional behavior and misconduct occurring. It is naive to think otherwise. Thus, the code of ethics for teachers exists to serve as a reminder to me and my fellow teachers that there professional standards we ought to adhere to.
It is imperative on the part of school administrators to see to it that they strictly monitor the performance of the teachers and ensure they are following school policies and guidelines. This should not be construed as a lack of trust but rather as enforcing excellence and ensuring that the students get what they deserve, what they pay for.
The ones leading schools need to make sure that their teachers are not engaged in what I call “mercenary teaching” – interested only in the money and disregarding professional ethics.
The True Color
We were born white
or black
or yellow
or brown
or red.
Different skin
Different hair
Different height
Different sizes
…but the same species –
HUMAN.
We all shall live.
… to grow
… to dream
… to triumph
… to fail
… to laugh
… to cry
… to love
But we all shall die…
The amount of melanin
That creates the illusion
Of whiteness, blackness, yellowness, brownness, or redness
Will not prevent us from dying.
We all shall die!
From ashes we came
to ashes we return.
And ashes are neither red
… nor brown
… nor yellow
… nor black.
Definitely, it’s not white.
It’s gray.
K-DREAM (Part 3)
(Last of 3 Parts)
For me, it is amazing how this country has gone this far, leaving my native land behind in the race to prosperity and stability. I want to know in what areas we Filipinos should improve if we intend to catch up with the South Koreans, and the rest of the world, in that race.
My desire to figure that out led me to read more about the history of this country. In the process, I discovered certain uncanny similarities between our historical experiences. South Korea and my native land are colonized nations and earned independence after the Second World War, and both countries embraced the democratic form of government. Additionally, just like in my country, the development of democracy in South Korea was also interrupted by military takeovers. And what a coincidence that martial law in this country and mine was declared in 1972. Was it also a coincidence that influential military leaders in both countries were removed via popular revolt in the mid-1980s?
Unfortunately, the similarities in the historical development of South Korea and my country stop there. We took different paths in building our nations from the ashes of colonization, the Second World War, and military juntas. However, the results differed even when the two countries were under totalitarian regimes with identical circumstances. Historians assert that it brought rapid industrialization to South Korea but, unfortunately, economic stagnation in the Philippines.
I really tried hard to figure out what happened. What went wrong for my country, and conversely, what did the South Koreans do correctly? To think that in the 1950s, while my country was soaking in the glory of being Asia’s second most robust economy, the Korean peninsula plunged into a devastating war.
I tried to probe deeper into this nation’s history to find the answers to the following questions I have in mind.
How did the South Koreans slay the ghosts of a bitter colonial past?
How did they survive the devastation wrought by the Korean War?
How did they triumph over internal political turmoil while trying to ward off a belligerent neighbor in North Korea?
How did the South Koreans accomplish all of those mentioned above and eventually catapult themselves to their current lofty position in the global community?
In my probe, I learned what the South Koreans did in 1998 at the height of the Asian financial crisis. They willingly donated their gold – jewelry (including their wedding rings), medals and trophies, good luck keys, and what have you. This they did to help save their economy during that crisis. As reported, the collective weight of the gold they donated may not be much. But more significant than the corresponding monetary value of their donation was the willingness of the South Koreans to make personal sacrifices for their country. Will the Filipinos do the same? I am not sure.
I call what the South Koreans did then an act of nationalism. If it’s not, then I don’t know what is. It is the same sense of nationalism that emboldened them to resist one military junta after another… to sacrifice their lives and limbs to lay the democratic foundations of their country, which eventually became a fertile ground that nurtured the economic prosperity they are currently enjoying.
Yes, my fellow Filipinos also sacrificed and resisted a dictatorship and, in the process, have even created the blueprint for a bloodless revolution – the EDSA revolution. But why were the Korean people able to ride the momentum of their victory after toppling a dictator to collectively bring their nation to prosperity, but we Filipinos could not? After both countries were ruled by dictators in 1972 and eventually returned to democracy approximately in 1987, where are they now economically and socio-politically speaking? ANSWER – South Korea is among the top 15 economies in the world, and the Philippines is far below the ranking. How did this happen?
My search for answers to questions that kept piling up prompted me to further my probe. After turning pages in the history of South Korea and my country, I decided to factor in variables that affect a country’s socio-political and economic development.
We know that nation-building is affected by geographical location, the pervading climate, political stability, natural resources, and human resources. Arguably, there are other factors, and those that I identified are obviously important. But the most vital in a country’s quest for development on all fronts is human resources. How far a country goes in terms of overall growth is contingent upon the quality or nature of its people.
National character is the construct used to embody the quality or nature of a group of people living in a country. Using Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Theory (Hofstede’s 6-D Model) and the results of the extensive research done by its proponents on the cultures of 118 countries, I decided to make a simple comparative analysis of the national characters of South Koreans and Filipinos, hoping to find reasons why the latter is eating the dust of the former in the race to global significance.
I discovered that the Philippines is a highly hierarchical society, while South Korea is only slightly hierarchical. People in hierarchical organizations are said to embrace the notion that power is naturally unequally distributed and believe there is nothing they can do about it. They defer too much to their leaders, thinking that they are infallible.
That’s how we Filipinos are. We embrace the politicians we decided to follow to the point of fanatism, and we support them to a fault. The South Koreans also respect their leaders, but they strongly demand accountability.
Filipinos and South Koreans are collectivist societies, but the latter do not embrace individualism like the former. We Filipinos may have somehow absorbed the individualistic tendencies of our colonizers.
Filipinos are not so collectivistic. As a matter of fact, we are afflicted with a trait that we need to overcome if we wish to make our nation great. That trait is “kanya-kanya” – the tendency to think of personal, family, and group interests over and above general welfare. The South Koreans are quite the opposite. They consider the welfare of the many as necessary, if not more important than their personal interests. No wonder, as I previously mentioned, they donated their gold during the financial crisis in 1998. I also witnessed first-hand how the South Koreans willingly obeyed the restrictions set by their government during the early onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic. Their leaders did not need to implement a “hard lockdown” like other countries did, including mine. The citizens strictly wore their masks, observed social distancing, and avoided leaving their homes unless necessary. They have shown their willingness to sacrifice for the greater good.
What is the reason behind the success of the political upheavals in my country in the 1980s not translating to meaningful socio-political and economic gains? Was it because they were driven not by the collective will of the Filipino people but by partisan politics?
What was clearly articulated in the findings of the extensive research done by the proponents of Hofstede’s 6-D Model is that the cultural dimensions of power distance (hierarchy) and collectivism/individualism are significantly positively correlated with wealth or prosperity. The Korean experience had me inferring that the less hierarchical and more collectivistic a society is, the more progressive it could become. And this has all the more expanded my K-dream. I wish Filipinos, like the South Koreans, would be less hierarchical and more collectivistic. Like them, we should demand accountability from our leaders. Like them, let’s think of the general welfare over and above our personal, group, and party interests. An important component of thinking for the common good is remembering our civic responsibilities, including contributing whatever we can to nation-building. But while we hold our leaders accountable, we should not forget that we, as citizens, have accountability too. Nation-building is a shared responsibility between leaders and citizens.
We must ask if Filipinos knowingly copied hook, line, and sinker the socio-political and economic models of our colonizers, or were we unknowingly indoctrinated or coerced to adopt them? Either way, what is clear is that we have yet to get desirable results. After decades of applying their economic and socio-political systems, our country is where it is now. Our needle of success as a nation needs to be moving. But we have been trying to fit the square peg of the countries that colonized us into our round hole. And to no avail. It’s not working. It’s time for us to rethink our strategies for nation-building. And this brings me to the culmination of my K-dream. I wish that we Filipinos give the South Korean economic, social, and political models a try. Let’s see what will happen if we embrace not only the popular culture of the South Koreans but also the standards and values that brought them to where they are now.
M.A.D. LIGAYA
M.A.D. L I G A Y A 