Learn a New Language and Gain a New Soul
Three unrelated events have transpired over the last few weeks that have inspired me to share a message with you that you know all too well: translating meaning from one language to another language (accurately) is very tricky business. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton learned that lesson the hard way when she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift bearing an incorrect translation—one that implied hostility, rather than peacemaking. Clinton presented Lavrov with a orange button which said "Reset" in English and "Peregruzka" in Russian. The problem was, "peregruzka" doesn't mean reset. It means overcharged, or overloaded. Lavrov called her out on it.
Now, the three unrelated events . . .
Event 1: My oldest son, Elliot, has just returned from a three month assignment in South Korea, teaching elementary school students American English. Though he spoke no Korean at the outset, his total immersion in Korean culture and living with his Korean host “family” forced him to become functionally conversational in Korean in just three months. Though his comprehension is rudimentary, he came to appreciate how translations from one language to another captures part of what was intended, but adds some pretty different subtleties as well. In assisting his students with their school newspaper with a cartoon storyline, he used a caption, “I played a joke on you.” But their translation was, “Ha ha, you have deceived me.” Close, but different.
Event 2: Barbara Billingsley, iconic mother in the old Leave It To Beaver TV series, just died at the age of 94. She played June Cleaver, an idealized mother of two boys whom she loved and protected, was often shown waiting for them to come home from school wearing an apron and holding a plate of freshly baked cookies. She even did household chores wearing pearls and earrings! Forever typecast, Billingsley spoofed her wholesome image with a very funny brief appearance in the comedy Airplane! by volunteering as a person who could speak “jive” in order to assist a physically ill African American passenger whom the flight attendant really didn’t understand.
Event 3: In my most recent Hogan certification workshop, I had a very lively participant from Montreal ask if the Hogan assessment tools were available in French, her primary language. Though she spoke with a thick French patois, her English was very good and articulate, but still, she wondered if she might have scored differently if she had taken the assessments in her native tongue. I told her that we have test translations in upwards of 40 languages, including French. She offered a quick, illustrative example—one of the questions asked her if she viewed herself as a “witty” person. After the testing, she asked her husband, “am I a witty person?” “What is this witty?”
Transferring an assessment instrument to a different culture and language is challenging and must be handled with accuracy and deep cultural understanding. When we (Hogan) have studied cultural differences in testing outcomes, though there are some differences, most are due to two things: sampling error and translation challenges.
Often, you cannot do a simple “forward translation” (word-for-word); when you then verify with a “backward translation,” the content can take on a bizarre Borat-like expression. We use a translation process called Adaptation—altering the translation content so that the meaning is the same in both cultures, even if the words differ. This requires a fully fluent translator who understands both the original culture (e.g., American culture) and the target culture (e.g., Chinese culture). We use fully fluent and bi-cultural translators with psychological training and backgrounds to translate the original test items into the target language. They have to understand both cultures so they can understand the meaning in US culture and adapt as appropriate for the target culture. They also need to be psychologists so they have an understanding of item construction and do not take translation liberties that harm the psychometric properties of the assessment items.
My son continues to study Korean for a return trip next year. I leave you with a Czech saying, “learn a new language and gain a new soul.”
About This Blog
The Science of Personality is Hogan’s blog for talent management professionals. Blog contributors will share their observations and insight on all things personality. We welcome you to join the discussion.






Comments
The process used by Hogan to translate the tests is sophisticated, thorough, and very impressive. I am convinced that the questions work very well in all 40 languages, but do the assessments mean the same thing in all 40 cultures? Is it necessary to take cultural differences in consideration when interpreting Hogan?
When someone speaks at a business meeting with a great degree of emotion, expression, hand gestures, and a raised voice, in the US this behavior might be characterized as eccentric (HDS Colorful), or volatile (HDS Excitable). In the South of Italy it might not be viewed as anything unusual.
Dan closed his post with a great saying “Learn a new language and gain anew soul.” Translating it into the language of intercultural psychology, one could say, “Learn a new language and gain a new
In Chinese, Russian, Hindi, or Arabic there is no word for “privacy.” These countries belong to the “collectivist” category, where relationships come before results, harmony is valued before efficiency, and where survival of the individual is linked to success of the group. Organizations are hierarchical, risk taking is not encouraged, and communication style is indirect.
The US belongs to the “individualist” category. The needs of the individual come before those of the group. Personal growth, achievement, independence, and efficiency are highly valued. Self promotion is an accepted way to get ahead, risk taking is encouraged, organizations are flat, and communication style is direct.
It seems to me that cultural considerations would be especially important when interpreting Hogan in a situation involving US and a collectivist culture (Asia, Africa, Middle East, Latin America).
Scoring. Let’s say we are considering a foreign individual for a position in a foreign company. Would it make sense to have the test scored against that country’s norm? For example, a Chinese participant who scored in a low percentile on MVPI Recognition may be in the average range when scored against the Chinese norm.
Profile. For an American to succeed overseas, they need to enjoy new experiences, handle ambiguity well, be risk-takers, flexible, open to feedback, good team players, open to learning and able to manage stress well. These qualities could be mapped to the appropriate HPI, HDS, and MVPI scale scores.
Derailers. Would high elevations on HDS mean the same thing in different countries? My guess is that the answer is “no.” For example, moderate to high risk on Dutiful will be less of a downside in a collectivist culture, than in the US. By the same token, moderate to high risk on Bold would seem a lot more of a liability in China than it would in the US. Moderate to High elevation on Colorful might not be as much of a risk in Latin America or South of Italy as it would be in the US.
Coaching. When helping someone make a behavior change, we look at beliefs driving the behavior. If we are coaching a foreign-born individual working for a US company, we can make predictions about his/her values that could be in conflict with the expectations that the organization has for him/her. Hogan assessment would provide additional information on that.
Let’s say, I am helping someone become more assertive. (High score on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity is considered a weakness). If the individual comes from a collectivist culture, they are likely to believe that it is impolite to contradict their boss, and that it could lead to negative consequences in their careers. By helping the client see that their belief does not work in the US work environment, we would make the behavior change much easier to implement.
Julia Karpeisky, M.A., M.S. is an executive coach with specialty in international communications. In addition to coaching, she does professional interpreting, consulting and training.
Hogan states that there are no significant cultural differences in test outcomes. I wonder if that’s really true. Personally, I would love to see more research done on this.
During a recent business trip to Seoul, Korea my colleague John and I went exploring the city together, and while wondering along the steep, narrow, windy streets we stumbled upon a spa.
“Do you want to get a massage?” he asked. After a 14-hour flight this idea sounded great.
We climb up three flights of stairs, part with our money, and then the awkward/comical part of the experience begins. The ladies who speak no English assume that we are a couple (which we are not), and show us to a room where we could change into robes. We take turns. While John changes, I look around and realize that there are no private rooms. There is either a room with two tables or one big room with lots of tables one next to another. At the end it did not matter, as my eyes were closed, and the hands of the massage therapist send me to a dreamland where my actual surroundings did not matter any more.
Korea along with other Asian countries is considered a “collectivist” culture. In collectivist cultures relationships come before results, harmony is valued before efficiency, and survival of the individual is linked to success of the group. Organizations are hierarchical, risk taking is not encouraged, and communication style is indirect.
The US belongs to an “individualist” category. The needs of the individual come before those of the group. Personal growth, achievement, independence, and efficiency are highly valued. Self promotion is an accepted way to get ahead, risk taking is encouraged, organizations are flat, and communication style is direct.
It seems to me that people from collectivist cultures would score higher on MVPI Affiliation, lower on MVPI Recognition, higher on HPI Interpersonal Sensitivity. The “fight” deraliers are probably less prevalent in collectivist cultures, while the “need to be right” derailers might show up more often.
I wonder also if as a group people who grew up in the Soviet Union, or other oppressive regime, would have low scores on the HPI Good Attachment subscale, indicating their rejection of authority.
Hogan refers to a 2008 study (Research on Australia’s Workforce DNA), which concludes that there are very small differences in test outcomes in different cultures. This study compared US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand. The language spoken in all four countries is the same, and it would be logical to expect that their souls are similar as well. Yes, British English is a bit different from American English, and there was a slight difference in test outcomes. All four cultures belong to the individualist category. I wonder if there is a study planned that would compare cultures represent places on the collectivist-individualist continuum, for example, US, France, Russia and China.
Julia Karpeisky, M.A., M.S. is an executive coach with specialty in international communications. In addition to coaching, she does professional interpreting, consulting and training.
Post new comment