Sorry, I gotta reply to this one again.

"All workplaces have clique (sic), this is undeniable. NO matter where you work!!"

Not true. You're always going to have similar people who gravitate towards each other and form groups, but that is not what a clique is. A clique has an exclusive element to it. I don't remember a workplace in my life that had an actual clique.

"But working in Korea is definitely not like working in the states; well news flash...YOUR (sic) NOT IN THE STATES ANYMORE!!"

This raises an interesting point. Should understanding be a two-way street? I think if I ran a business, and I relied heavily on foreign employees, I would educate myself as much as I could on THEIR culture, and hope that they did the same, so there would be an overlap of understanding. I wouldn't be stubborn and arrogant and expect that the responsibility lied completely with them. If the employees became unhappy and started dropping like flies, I'd probably find out exactly what the problem was and fix it.

When the bosses consantly berated me over trivial issues on an almost daily basis, and I didn't respond to it, and I became visibly unhappy, why didn't they stop? They could see it wasn't working. These were never helpful meetings, they were always "are you too stupid to figure this out" type tongue-lashings. Then they wondered why I never voluntarily went in to talk to them! Every time I got anywhere near that office, it gave them a chance to berate me again! I just decided to avoid them as much as I could. Are you going to tell me that that's something I should've just gotten used to? Because I wasn't "in the States anymore?" Or should I have just done what someone advised me once: "just flirt with her a little, tell her she's pretty, and then she'll help you." I don't think I should have to flirt just to get help. I shouldn't have to lie either, which I would be doing if I told her she was pretty. This is why the idea of "understanding" should go both ways, and not be solely on one side.