Discover Your Culture Instinctive Mindset (CIM)

CultuRecode™ CIM Participant Survey – Are you a Collective First or Individual First Mindset person?

In our study on engagement and communication break down between Aboriginal people & Non- Aboriginal people of colonialist heritage.  We found most fell into one of two groups;

1) Collective First Instinctive Mindset members ( Most Aboriginal people) think entire group first and then themselves as part of their relationship and responsibilities within their In-group. (Are my group happy, so I can be happy?) (Are my group being looked after, so I can feel confident to have fulfilled my responsibility to my In-group?)

2) Individual First Instinctive Mindset members (Most Non-Aboriginal) think Individual first and then their relationship and responsibilities to their group. (Am I happy, so I can make my group happy?) (Am I being looked after, so I can feel confident to have fulfilled my responsibility to my In-group?)

Both loving groups believing happily that their own Belief System cultures is right (as they should) – most not recognising their unique instinctive inheritance from thousands of years of ancestors and certainly most not realising that there is another Belief System. An Equally strong default system of values that drives the other groups Culturally Bias Unconscious thought as theirs does.

Knowing my own CIM and the CIM of others, I have gained incredible confidence and clarity of my message when I meet or work with anyone.  It has released me from uncertainty about what I should be doing and given me the gift of amazing insight into how others are feeling and the way they need me to communicate.

Our team have created a raft of real-life everyday scenarios to ascertain what the communication and process difference is between Collective and Individualistic Mindset populations by utilising people from Indigenous and Colonialist Britain heritage cultures. We observed and took part in multiple scenarios that include meetings, project design work, family events, parenting, small business seminars, information sharing, mentoring, reflection and co-worker communication.

The CultuReCode™ project has identified that according to world researchers up to seventy countries around the world share the very similar CIM as Ancient Indigenous people.  These seventy countries include economic powerhouses such as Russia, China, India and most other Asian cultures. This discovery highlights a collaborative tool with immense potential for all Australians to work far more effectively across multicultural societies and understand their own cultural identity far more than previously thought possible.

The five Dimensions of the CultuRecode™ Theory emerged from the analysis of the largest bodies of empirical data in the Social Sciences, gathered in the 20th Century from over 100 countries by Geert Hofstede, Shalom Schwartz and Ronald Inglehart. Additional to the empirical data above is the comparative qualitative research undertaken by the CultuRecode™ team over the last five years that focused on identifying the patterns within cultures relating to the causes of Instinctive engagement difference. 

To work globally it is critical we understand and share in the Culture Instinctive Mindset of ourselves and those cultural groups other than our own.

Image – Cultures of the world with similar or same CIM as Collective Mindset in red (Ancient Indigenous) or Individualistic Mindset in blue (Colonialist British heritage) (the ones in pink are too close to call)

  • The purpose of this survey is to identify (based on the information you supply) your Instinctive Belief System Codes to enable us to present your IBS Profile.

  • REMINDER This survey is about how you personally feel/react/behave regarding each question. It is not a questionnaire of how you presume others think you should respond.

    Indicate your level of agreement with the statements below

    Core Value Code 1

    Instructions

    Essentially, we are aiming to show how people from another culture (Instinctive Belief System), do the same things differently – even simple everyday business activities such as a collaboration or meeting.

    In this activity, you choose an A or B scenario that is closest to how you would undertake that certain everyday thing.

    For example, would if you enjoy the BSB workplace family event more like person A (1A) then click agree and then click disagree on person B's (1B) scenario?

    We are not after how you exactly undertake activities – just those you think are the most right or how you would be comfortable doing it.

    We need people to be as honest as possible.

    Step 1 – Find out the necessary background heritage of your family/carers

    Step 2 – To begin, read each set of two comparative BSB Scenarios

    Step 3 - For the first five questions - Select agree based on the five Part A or B scenarios you align most with and disagree with the other scenario. Choose your answers to the final five non-scenario questions and press submit

    Step 4 - fill out the form honestly

    Step 5 – Learn from your BSB Profile

    The aim of the Cultural Intuitive Training (CIT) is to give companies the means, insight and knowledge to overcome collaborative differences at all levels.

    Cultural Intuitive Training allows people to communicate using critical key words, localised visual tools, communication strategies and presentation needs that are necessary to engage and work together effectively with cultural groups outside of your own.

    CIT will give your workers the tangible identifiers to know when people from another culture are doing the same thing differently.

    All information entered into this document is treated confidentially and will not be shared with anyone without the participants’ express permission

    Person A’s Workplace family event experience (parent and 4 kids) – Also invited her sister and her 3 kids as they were staying at her place. Person A was busy feeding toddler (2years). The other children were off on the play equipment or chasing seagulls, not interested in eating so soon – despite Person A calling out to them to come and get some food. After about 11 minutes they had come when called and were directed over to the BBQ and food table to help themselves. 6-year-old went into the women’s toilet (which was a short distance away), having worked out which was the right one. When she hadn’t come back in 5 minutes, Parent A directed one of the children to go in and see if she was all right. At one stage toddler tottered over towards the merry-go-round and, as she got closer, Parent A called out to seven-year-old to stop the wheel. He did so and then told toddler to move away from it – which she did. Even though it was Autumn, Person A let the children go in for a swim, knowing that there were no towels or changes of clothes. Person A said that she allowed the children to swim because she believed that if it was too cold for them they would not go in. She felt that they were old enough to decide such things for themselves. When four-year old male came out of the water and said to Person A shivering, ‘Freezin’ Mum. It’s freezin’ out there!’ Person A replied, ‘Yeah, go for another swim, then.’ Person A referred to this as an ‘action replay’, explaining that she often did this when the children stated the obvious for attention. This was one way in which her children learned to accept the consequences of their own decisions by being allowed to make decisions about actions When asked at the end of the day if they had a great time – all kids unanimously said yes
    Person B’s Workplace Family Event experience (parent and 3 kids) - At Person B’s Workplace Family Event. All of Person B's family was given their own paper plate and cup that Person B laid out and organised. The two older children began to squabble, provoked by 11-yearold male, who kept teasing his younger sister by hitting her on the head with his paper plate. The children were allocated their food by Person B because they wanted to ensure all the children ate a balanced meal and some kids didn’t like certain foods. The children were told they had to eat before going to play on the swings. The older children then went off on the play equipment within sight and hearing of Person B sitting on the blanket who kept the toddler entertained At no time did Person B allow the children to be out of their sight and if there were issues or problems she would intervene and sort them out. The children were told not to go near the water, as Person B believed they might be tempted to get wet and it was too cold for swimming. When one of the children wanted to go to the toilet, Person B collected their valuables (purse etc) and made all the kids go with her to the toilet regardless if they wanted to go. Person B’s toddler never sought food or assistance from her siblings, and they never offered it to her. The toddler knowingly went to Person B for what she wanted. When asked at the end of the day if they had a great time – all kids unanimously said yes
  • ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    Person A arrived in the morning, greeted warmly and offered not only a beverage but breakfast of boiled eggs and toast, which Person A happily accepted. The chef and Person A chatted about each other’s families, community goings on (gossip) and how each other’s businesses are faring etc. It took about an hour or so for Person A to be given a thorough tour by the chef proudly explaining their new ovens and facility and how they had managed to get in this place. It wasn’t until Person A was getting ready to leave that the Chef asked casually what was it that Person A needed her to do? Person A replied that they wanted to film the Chef explaining and cooking up some of her recipes to feature on an Australian education website. The Chef replied sounds good, happy to help and then asked who would be filming. Person A told her the film producer’s name and the Chef then asked that the person doing the filming should call and set up at time. Fantastic Person A replied and promised to get the film producer to ring her next week, and they then said their goodbyes. Person A was happy with the meeting and confident that it would be a positive outcome. Person A was contacted by the chef to say she was happy to do it.
    Person B Representatives Person B arrived in the morning, greeted warmly and offered not only a beverage but breakfast of boiled eggs and toast, which Person B kindly declined the eggs as she had just had breakfast but said thank you very much for the offer of coffee. Whist the coffee was being prepared Person B engaged warmly in conversation about the weather and how very cold it was at the moment and tried to build rapport with the Chef by asking a few questions about their successful career. Person B politely told the chef that she was so appreciative of them taking the time to talk to Person B but was also aware that the Chef was busy and so would not take up all of her time. Out of respect for Person B’s time and wanting to be polite tried to ensure the meeting went as quickly as possible. Person B then asked if the Chef had received her email that outlined what the Education company needed and if there were any questions she would be able to answer. The Chef asked lots of questions about things Person B had already covered in the email to her surprise, but Person B was happy to go over it again. The Chef then asked who would be running the filming on the day and said she would prefer to deal with that person directly. Person B explained that it was her role to do that and asked if the chef could give her some dates that she might be free to do the filming? The Chef ended the meeting saying she was really busy today and would get back to Person B and that it seemed all fine, thanking her for thinking of her in the first place.
  • ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    Person A asked for some high-profile business people to mentor her to help Person A with a new start-up business be a big success. A couple of very kind successful business people put their hands up and Person A decides to go with the person she feels most comfortable with, corporate executive Judy (who runs multiple businesses as well). Judy is in another state so much initial contact is by phone, but Person A is very comfortable with Judy and considers her a friend after the first phone call. Judy of course is happy to give a limited amount of her valuable time. Judy presumes like all other people she has mentored that this is only a short-term thing as she can’t commit long term. After several phone calls and lots of great advice and knowledge sharing, they meet up and Judy mentions that she is happy to help Person A get a start by purchasing some of her product for her stores. Person A is over the moon and again this affirms to her the great friendship that they share. But of course, Judy gets busy and puts the project on hold for a while and cannot take Person A’s calls very often. Person A feels let down and hurt because she feels that Judy is not giving everything (time, energy or resources) to help her as this is what Person A would do in return. Judy is of course oblivious and eventually calls Person A and starts negotiations again. However, this time Person A is warier and guarded and no longer feels hopeful. Unfortunately, things have changed, and Judy is no longer in a position to offer as much as before but is happy to do something with Person A. Person A’s trust with Judy is broken and she is now despondent and saddened that her friend could treat her this way, considering she is so successful and should share her success, as Person A would do for her if the roles were reversed. Person A stops ringing Judy back.
    Business Mentoring Experience – Person B Person B asked for some high-profile business people to mentor her to help Person B with a new start-up business to be a big success. A couple of very kind successful business people put their hands up and Person B decides to go with the most successful and experienced corporate executive Judy (who runs multiple businesses as well). Judy is in another state so much initial contact is by phone, but Person B is respectful of any time and advice she can from Judy. Judy makes it clear that she has limited time but is happy to give an hour a week for a couple of months to provide some mentoring experience to help Person B get up and going in the right direction. Person B is very grateful of this experience knowing it is short term but may give Person B new skills and directions to which she can continue to move forward. After several phone calls and lots of great advice and knowledge sharing, they meet up and Judy mentions that she is happy to help Person B get a start by purchasing some of her product for her stores. Person B is over the moon and feels this could be their big break. But of course, Judy gets busy and puts the project on hold for a while and cannot take Person B’s calls as often. Person B feels a bit disappointed but understands that Judy is busy and doing this for free. Person B wishes that Judy would have committed more and does feel some disappointment that Judy didn’t follow through with investing in the company further. Judy is of course oblivious and eventually calls Person B and starts negotiations again. Person B, believing this is acceptable behaviour, accepts their offer. Unfortunately, things have changed, and Judy is no longer in a position to offer as much as before but is happy to do something with Person B. Person B considers seriously whatever Judy is offering and does not feel offended as this is just business. Person B and Judy catch up occasionally via social media
  • ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    Co-worker relationships – Person A Person A believes in portraying a professional relationship at work that is different to the personal relationships away from the workplace. On occasions good friendships stem from workplaces, however, in many fast paces modern workplaces we found this is not as common. A lot of effort goes into making sure that conversations are not directly personal to make sure others are not put on the spot or not feel one is being disrespectful by prying around personal issues, especially if you have not established a personal relationship/friendship with this individual at that point in time. It is felt that a person will share their personal information when they are ready, and this is how more trust is built between co- workers overtime. Most of the conversations held even in lunch break were work orientated to debrief or unburden and share difficulties that occurred throughout the day. Most personal information shared is not too personal, but effort is put into keeping the conversation flowing. For example; About the weather or current news. Previous jobs held and their experiences at them. Dietary issues or needs and how this affected their lives Personal hobbies and why they did them. How many children and how the trials of parenting affected them. What schools their children attended and how why they chose that school. How hard it was to get children into particular schools. Holiday destinations and how Person A was really looking forward to the break. Areas of study and the journey of juggling careers, study and relationships/ family. Favourite sporting teams or favourite bands or music. Children’s academic and sporting achievements and how this impacted on you or your family. Invitations to personal family events from work colleagues were usually not accepted by Person A, as they could feel it may have been issued as a matter of courtesy. Person A also valued highly their own time with their family and In-Group and were less likely to share this time with outsiders or new friends.
    Co-worker relationships – Person B Person B believes in one type of relationship fits all. Regardless of the location. Whether it is at work, in their local community or within their family or In-Group. At the workplace Person B are happy to share any or all personal information. Most of the conversations held even in lunch break focus on their connections, beliefs and experiences in relation to their family, friends and other In-Group members. Most personal information shared is of an open revealing nature that is intent on building Person B’s relationships and In-Group. For example; Their and their in-Group’s number of children and the trials of parenting What Person B has done or doing to make members of their In-Group happy Their and their in-Group children’s dramas and experiences Their and their in-Group’s Holiday experiences Their and their in-Group’s Family events Their and their in-Group’s Experiences of study Their and their in-Group’s Uni’s they attended Their and their in-Group’s Previous job experiences Their and their in-Group’s Sports teams alliances & experiences Their and their in-Group Children’s academic and sporting achievements & how they celebrated them Their and their in-Group’s Dietary issues or needs and how the family handled this Hobbies of people in their family or In-Group Invitations to family events from work colleagues were usually accepted and encouraged by Person B, who often invited everyone to their events.
  • ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    Project design process – Person A Person A reads the documentation of what is needed and decides on the strategy to utilise their experience working with young people and feels confident in their abilities and knowledge to write the program with a bit more research. Person A turns up at the second meeting with an overview of what the program could look like with a summary of the essential points, objectives and possible outcomes to be able to double check that all are on the same page. Person A researches and utilises the latest research in the area both in Australia and overseas and meets with professionals working in this area to learn from them as well. Person A collates all this knowledge and information and develops the program which includes the latest research and on the ground experience from experts in this specific area. Person A’s Process needs to big picture and outcomes to then fill in the details and complete project. Time undertaken – 4 weeks Person A’s Process needs are Micro to Macro
    Project design process – Person B Person B reads the documentation of what is needed and decides on a strategy to get a group of young people from the target group together as the first action. Person B attends the second meeting four weeks later and has not started putting the program together. Person B organises some young people to sit down with them and asks the young people to share their issues and needs in relation to bullying. Person B documents the participants responses and starts to develop a program using a combination of Person B’s experience and the participants real life feedback and suggestions. Person B sets up another session with this same group of young people and shares with them the program design. Again, Person B modifies the program based on the groups feedback and input. After the second session Person A feels confident enough to design the program. Time undertaken – 10 weeks Person B’s Process needs are Macro to Micro