Fatalism and Safety Programs

By Lisa DeWaard, Ph.D. and Marina Karpina (Originally posted on LinkedIn March 25, 2025)

In heavy and dangerous industries, safety plans and efforts to reduce accidents are top of mind. In cultures like the U.S., the preservation of life on jobsites is a key focus and the loss of even one life is considered to be one life too many. But is this a universal view? To most in the West, anything else likely sounds ludicrous. What can be more important than human life? But what if there were even bigger concerns? And what if those who believe so are the very people who could be seriously injured—or even die—on the job?

The truth is that, in many societies, duty to others comes before self, even before the preservation of one’s own safety. In our work with global companies over the years, this issue has appeared again and again as one of the most difficult cross-cultural dilemmas to resolve. We would argue that it’s impossible to solve without understanding the root societal values that drive behavior. One of these cultural traits is fatalism.

Several years ago, we worked with a global company from a dangerous industry. They were perplexed that the well-crafted safety plan they had developed hadn’t resulted in lower fatality numbers in several regionsf. One of these was in Kazakhstan. After multiple approaches to  remedy this, they considered that perhaps they were up against a cross-cultural difference. We saw they had a state-of-the-art safety plan that seamlessly implemented all of the most effective strategies and practices—for cultures that we consider “Western.” The failure of their plan to reduce fatalities in Kazakhstan did turn out to be a cross-cultural issue.

Fatalism

Fatalism is the belief that you have little ability to shape its events with your choices. It’s a characteristic we can track using the Hofstede Six Dimension Model of National Culture. In the rest of this article, we look at the roles of self and choice and how they differ.

In fatalistic societies, the events of one’s life are largely outside of their control. One must accept what happens and do the best to cope with the results. Certain things are seen as inevitable and the best that you can do is accept them and keep going. This contrasts with the view in non-fatalistic cultures, where the outcome of one’s life is said to be determined by the choices we make throughout it. There is an optimistic approach that says, “if you don’t like something, change it!”, “unless you change, nothing else will”, and “failing to plan is planning to fail.” These sayings lay the burden for the outcome of events on the actions of the individual and little to no room is made for fate.

Fatalistic cultures, such as Russia’s, provide different lessons. Russia is not fatalistic in the extreme, but there is a stark difference between the philosophy of our two cultures. In Russia, the individual’s needs are considered less important that those of the collective, whether that be family and friends, a person’s team at work, or the needs of your country. During Soviet times, those in power set the course and those who didn’t served that course. Many grew up believing their individual value in society came primarily from what they brought to the collective—even if it meant the giving of their life. People in highly fatalistic cultures often believe that duty is more important than self and that, due to the whims of fate, their life could be lost at any time. This gives rise to a sense of resignation about the present moment and a focus on the future, quite often the distant future. If my contribution as an individual leads to the success of a collective future goal, my life is a success. Post-Soviet Russia has shifted in this respect (see below).

Why is this?

If we compare the United States and Russia on the Six Dimensions of National Culture by Geert Hofstede,[1] we can explain these differences.

While all six dimensions play a role, we will focus on three here: Power Distance, Individualism, and Indulgence.

Power Distance is a measure of how important hierarchy is in a society. We call cultures that have a score above 50 “hierarchical” or as having a “hierarchical orientation” and those below as “egalitarian” or as having a “participative orientation.” Essentially, this means that hierarchical cultures believe that people have greater or lesser value in society and that resulting inequalities are fair and right. Egalitarian cultures believe that all human beings are inherently equal and should all have to play by the same rules. The key to reading the data is to examine the difference between the scores of two cultures. Here we see that Russia is quite hierarchical with a score of 93[2] and that the United States is mid-range with a score of 40. So, those without power in Russia often do believe that they are subject to the whims of fate and of those who hold power. In the U.S., we believe that individuals, through their own choices and actions, can move up the ranks in society and become power holders.

Individualism reinforces the importance of choice and freedom to move up in society in the U.S.. The core unit of society in the U.S. is the individual. Ideally, the society should create a system by which anyone who works hard and makes good choices can achieve the life they dream of. The U.S. has the highest score on individualism of all countries measured at 91. The core unit of society in Russia is the group; people tend to think of themselves from a “we” perspective and less from an “I” perspective. Modern Russians have more freedom of choice than they had previously, but the influence of the group remains strong.

Indulgence versus Restraint

While the above dimensions contribute to fatalism, the last dimension directly encodes optimism versus fatalism in cultures. The U.S. has a mid-high score of 68 and Russia has a low score at 20. Russia, with its hierarchy, collectivism, and restraint/fatalistic orientation, continues to value group needs, restraint in business and life, and resilience in accepting what fate doles out. The U.S. is quite the opposite with its focus on the individual, resistance of social classes[3], and focus on choices, actions, and personal responsibility. It should be noted that the U.S. belief that we can change our circumstances makes it difficult for us to accept things we cannot. For example, during Covid, mental health issues rose significantly in the U.S.

Returning to Safety Programs

When we consider the concepts of hierarchy, individualism, and fatalism, we see that these differences require safety program strategies that aren’t only diametrically opposed, but also mutually exclusive. Cultures that are egalitarian and individualistic require approaches that involve the employees at every level, create empowerment, elicit input, and cultivate dialogue. Employers must be prepared to listen and take employees’ concerns and suggestions to heart. In cultures that believe a person’s actions are the greatest tool for protecting them from injury, empowerment and involvement are crucial.

In Kazakhstan, employees are taught that their role is to execute the plans of those who outrank them. It’s not their job to come up with suggestions or strategies, and you can lose your job if you criticize your boss’s ideas or offer your own instead (especially in front of others). Your role is very clear: maintain harmony within your work team, support your immediate supervisor over those further up the chain of command, and contribute by doing your work. When we add in the strong fatalism present in Kazakhstan, we predicted that employees would uphold those values over their personal safety. And this is exactly what was happening. Employees would do what their immediate supervisor said—even if it was risky—to help make quotas and save face with the bosses further up the chain. And if an action resulted in a fatality, the immediate supervisor and team members cared for the deceased’s loved ones upon their death.

In the end, the right answer was to shift to a safety approach that worked with the hierarchy and not against it. Simple orders about what should be done followed up by frequent inspection were best. While this goes against the cultural values of those who created the initial safety program, it was the most effective approach in that location.

One final note: When it comes to safety programs, Western companies have had an impact on safety culture in Russia. When European and U.S. companies began investing in Russia post-Soviet Union, they brought education programs about work safety. This cultural difference led to a rise in awareness about ways to combat work accidents and is an example of how cultures in contact can have positive effects on one another.

The Bottom Line for Global Leaders

Safety programs are only truly effective when they align with cultural norms. Rather than applying a cut-and-paste approach, you need to build cultural competence—deepen your knowledge, adapt your approach, and actively listen and learn.

Local experts and intercultural consultants are available to help you create safe environments by adjusting your communication style, cascading programs, and approach locally. With our global database of country scores and our extensive network of colleagues from around the world, our decades of expertise allow for quick turnaround time and practical insights that can be effectively applied in any region.

Reach out to Lisa DeWaard at [email protected] and/or Marina Karpina at [email protected] to schedule a 30-minute no-cost conversation and/or to subscribe to our email lists to learn more about how to customize your alignment.

[1] https://geerthofstede.com/country-comparison-bar-charts/

[2] There is no “better” or “worse” score on any dimension. Each culture has its own unique profile.

[3] Philosophically and in general, although this ebbs and flows in practice.