Why do workers from different countries exhibit resilience differently?

“Even in the cutthroat world of investment banking, emotional strength is not enough to allow workers to cope with market turmoil. Organisational culture and social interactions matter. By comparing workplaces in Türkiye and Nigeria, Emmanuel Akaiso finds that resilience is not one-size-fits-all. In one culture emotional strength flows outward, while in the other it is more internally driven. Markets are not kind to investment bankers. From the currency crises gripping Nigeria and Türkiye to the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, workers in high-pressure financial services have had to find ways to function, decide and lead under conditions of extreme uncertainty. When the pressure mounts, we tend to assume that the resilient ones simply have a personal toughness that carries them through. But what if resilience is far more social, and far more organisational, than we think? My study of 605 professionals working in investment banking across Nigeria and Türkiye challenges the widespread assumption in management across different investment banks in the two countries that emotional strength is a portable, universally effective resource. It is not. Whether and how emotional strength helps employees to cope during difficult times depends critically on culture and organisational context. Emotional strength helps, but not in the same way everywhere. At the individual level, emotional self-efficacy, the belief in one’s ability to recognise, manage and express emotions effectively, does help employees navigate stress. That holds across both countries. But the mechanism through which it works is strikingly different. Comparing resilience among Nigerian and Turkish workers As cross-cultural validation research among Nigerian populations confirms, emotional self-efficacy is a robust and measurable psychological resource, but one whose expression varies meaningfully across cultural contexts. This matters enormously when interpreting cross-national findings. In Türkiye, emotional strength tends to flow outward, into relationships. Employees who are emotionally capable are significantly more likely to support their colleagues, share burdens and engage in helping behaviours. In Nigeria, coping is more internally driven. Emotional strength still matters, but it works more as a personal resource. Employees rely on cognitive reframing, emotional regulation and individual strategies rather than reaching outward to colleagues. Prosocial behaviour mediates only around 16 per cent of the effect. “When this firm stopped punishing every mistake and started asking ‘what did we learn?’, something shifted in me. I found I could finally trust my own instincts again, even when the market was completely unpredictable.” Senior investment banker, Nigeria These social interactions become the primary pathway through which individuals cope with market stress. “ Prosocial behaviour ”, or helping others, accounts for over 52 per cent of the total effect of emotional strength on coping capacity in the Turkish sample. Two coping architectures; and why it matters “The volatility was brutal, everyone knew it. But we pulled each other through. When I helped a colleague reframe a bad quarter, I realised I was also helping myself cope. That collective spirit is what kept us functional.” Investment banker, Türkiye These patterns reveal what might be called two distinct coping architectures. In Türkiye, resilience is relational and collective: emotional strength is converted into shared social support, informal networks and mutual problem-solving that buffer stress even when formal organisational structures are weak. In Nigeria, resilience is more individualised: employees draw primarily on personal emotional resources, but this system is highly sensitive to the organisational environment. A systematic review of the relationship between emotional self-efficacy, prosocial behaviour and organisational coping capacity shows that these pathways are well-established in the literature . But the relative weight of social versus individual mechanisms has rarely been tested comparatively across cultures. This study fills that gap. This distinction matters enormously for how organisations think about employee wellbeing, especially those operating across different cultural contexts. Resilience is not one-size-fits-all. The same internal resource can produce very different outcomes depending on the environment in which it operates. The role of organisational culture: error tolerance as a turning point Perhaps the most striking finding concerns how organisations respond to mistakes. The study measures an organisation’s error tolerance, the degree to which a workplace treats errors as learning opportunities rather than failures to be punished and finds that it can make or break the effectiveness of emotional strength. “No matter how well I think I understand my emotions or how composed I try to stay, if the environment punishes every wrong move, you just shut down. You stop trying. Self-awareness means nothing here when fear runs the floor.” Investment banking professional, Nigeria In Nigeria, the effect is dramatic. When error tolerance is high and employees feel psychologically safe to make mistakes, emotional strength strongly predicts coping capacity (β = 0.804). When error tolerance is low, the same emotional strength becomes statistically irrelevant as a predictor of coping (β = 0.200, non-significant). In other words, in punitive organisational climates, emotional capability is effectively suppressed. Employees may disengage, avoid initiative or withhold their emotional resources entirely. In Türkiye, error tolerance still plays a role, but as an amplifier rather than a prerequisite. The strong social infrastructure already sustaining resilience means that even when organisational culture is weaker, employees have social buffers to fall back on. These findings are consistent with recent evidence showing that organisational error tolerance directly strengthens the emotional and coping resources of employees. Psychological safety is not merely a cultural nicety but a structural mechanism that determines whether resilience can function at all. In punitive climates, even the most emotionally prepared individuals may disengage or withhold their strengths. What organisations should do For leaders, these findings point to four practical priorities. First, invest in emotional capability; but with realistic expectations. Training programmes that build emotional awareness, regulation and confidence are worthwhile, but their impact will depend on the conditions you create around them. Second, build a culture of psychological safety. If employees fear blames for mistakes, emotional strength is effectively locked away. Creating genuine error tolerance, where failures are examined and learned from rather than punished, is what allows emotional capability to translate into real coping. “There were weeks where the pressure was suffocating. Even when I reached out to colleagues, the anxiety was collective, we were all drowning together. Helping each other only goes so far when the system itself is in freefall.” Investment banking professional, Türkiye Third, design structures that encourage social connection. Mentoring programmes, peer support networks, and team-based problem-solving all help build the collective resilience that is especially powerful in relational cultures. Even in more individualistic settings, these structures can widen the social pathways through which emotional strength gets expressed. Fourth, do not assume what works in one culture will work in another. Multinational organisations need to understand the coping architecture of each context they operate in and adapt their people strategies accordingly. Resilience is built between people, not just within them There is a persistent tendency to frame resilience as a personal quality, something individuals either have or lack. This framing is not just incomplete; it can be harmful, placing the burden of survival entirely on the individual while letting organisations off the hook. The evidence from this study tells a different story. Resilience is built at the intersection of the individual and the environment. Emotional strength matters, but it needs a social and organisational infrastructure to become truly effective. To thrive in times of market turmoil, employees need both the capacity to stand strong alone and the conditions that allow them to stand strong together. This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics. You are agreeing with our comment policy when you leave a comment. Image credit: Cagkan Sayin provided by Shutterstock. The post Why do workers from different countries exhibit resilience differently? first appeared on LSE Business Review .

Summary generated from the RSS feed of LSE Business Review. All article rights belong to the original publisher. Click through to read the full piece on blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview.