Unit 2 Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures

UNIT 2

Lecture on the theme «Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures»

Plan

1. Collectivism/Individualism as one of the 4 Dimensions of Culture (G. Hofstede)

2. Key characteristics of Individualistic and Collectivistic cultures

3. Key factors in determining whether a culture becomes Individualistic or Collectivistic

4. Four types of Individualism and Collectivism (Harry Triandis)

5. Influence of Individualistic and Collectivistic value orientations on Communication Styles, Decision Making, Dealing with Conflicts

6. Advantages and disadvantages of Individualistic and Collectivistic cultures

There are two contrasting cultural orientations: one values individualism, and the other values collectivism. How is individualism and collectivism defined? Broadly defined, individualism emphasizes personal freedom and achievement. Collectivism, in contrast emphasizes embeddedness of individuals in a larger group. The best known international measure of individualism and collectivism is that developed by the Dutch scholar Geert Hofstede who used surveys of IBM employees from (eventually) 72 countries. The idea was to survey people with equivalent jobs in different countries in the same company so as to measure cultural differences in order to live or work successfully in any society or organisation. According to Hofstede, “ Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only.... Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”. Hofstede developed a quantitative ranking system in which countries are organized based on the persistence of Individualism and Collectivism within their national culture. For instance, the United States ranked #1 out of 50 countries for Individualism, with a score of 91 on the Individualism-Collectivism index, followed by Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand; and China (Hong Kong) ranked #35 out of 50 countries for Individualism, with a score of 25 on the Individualism-Collectivism index reflecting low levels of Individualism and high levels of Collectivism. So, Asian cultures, Latin cultures and Middle Eastern cultures are typically considered collectivistic.

In order to interpret the implications of these scores and better summarize the differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, one should consider certain conditions (ecology, i.e., features of geography, resources, and the history of a society, as well as family structure, distribution of wealth, and demographics). Ecology: Historically, individualistic cultures have been associated with complex hunter-gather tendencies in which individuals rely less on the land and more on individual ambitions. Mobility also increases the likelihood of individualism that allows people to separate and live at a distance from other people. In comparison, collectivism is usually associated with agricultural societies in which obedience and conformity are required. Since agricultural societies are typically isolated from other societies, it is difficult to make a living independently from the group. When individuals cannot survive independently and have limited access to resources, group cooperation becomes more important. Additionally, agricultural societies have predominately been characterized as collectivistic because of low mobility (limited resources and isolation) and more pressure to be accepted by the in-group (less social diversity). Family structure within a culture can also indicate whether a culture is individualistic or collectivistic. Large, extended families that promote embeddedness are associated with collectivistic cultures because of increased interdependence. Conversely, small families that permit separation are individualistic in nature. Wealth facilitates separation and independence, and in 1980, Hofstede “found a positive correlation between individualism and wealth, with industrialized wealthy countries scoring higher on individualism than developing countries”. Hofstede concluded that increases in national wealth cause an increase in individualism, but not vice versa. When people within a country experience an increase in affluence, they consequently have an increase in personal discretion to spend their money, which creates an increase in individualism. Demographics within a culture can refer to age, education, type of employment, income, gender, race, and urban versus rural environment. In 1997, Smith and Schwartz proposed that younger, educated individuals typically act more individualistically than older, less educated individuals. Gender differences between individualism and collectivism have not been statistically significant (Kashima et al., 1995). Racial groups, such as people of color and Caucasians in the United States, have also demonstrated differences in individualistic and collectivistic tendencies (Triandis, 2012). For instance, people of color in the United States have scored higher on collectivism compared to Caucasians in the United States (Triandis, 2012 referenced Gaines et al., 1997).

Having explained the conditions (ecology, family structure, distribution of wealth, and demographics) necessary for individualistic or collectivistic cultures to exist, it is equally important to explain how individualistic and collectivistic cultures persist through individual attributes (cognitions, norms, emotions, values, self-concepts). Cognitions: Cognitive processes within individualistic cultures require individuals to focus on personal needs, rights, capacities, and contracts, and assume complete responsibility for their actions (Triandis, 1995). In addition, individualistic cognitions are motivated by individually oriented goals. For example, in the United States Constitution, the promotion of, and primary focus on, the individual’s rights, liberties, and pursuit of happiness promotes individualistic cognitions. In contrast, within collectivistic cultures, individuals are motivated by socially oriented goals, focus primarily on the needs of the group, and identify the collective as responsible for outcomes. Norms within a culture relate to patterns of behaviors within a given context. Norms within individualistic cultures are less consistent because individuals act as independent agents (Triandis, 1995). In comparison, social behavior is less evident within collectivistic cultures because there is a tendency to shift behavior depending on the context, such that individuals act differently to each in-member but uniformly with out-group members. Emotions: Individuals who operate within an individualistic culture have egocentric emotions where they primarily are concerned about themselves; in contrast, individuals who operate within a collectivistic culture are concerned about others (Triandis, 1995). The emotions of collectivists may incorporate the conditions of others, such as empathy, but the emotions of individualists may only incorporate the individual’s condition, such as anger. Emotions concerning privacy also fluctuate between individualism and collectivism; individualistic cultures protect privacy, whereas collectivistic cultures believe people should be concerned and involved with other people’s business. Values: Within individualistic cultures, curiosity, creativity, having an exciting life, and pleasure are valued. In comparison, collectivistic cultures value security, social relationships, in-group harmony and personalized relationships (Triandis, McCuster, and Hui, 1990; S.H. Schwartz, 1994). Self-concepts differ between cultures and are the product of social factors. Individualists define the self as an autonomous entity independent of groups. Collectivists define the self in terms of its connectedness to others in various in-groups.

Taking all above mentioned information into account, one can name three key factors determining whether a culture becomes individualistic or collectivistic (Harry Triandis). The first is the complexity of a society. As people live in more complex industrialized and service-information societies (compared to e.g. food-gathering nomads), there are more groups to identify with, which means less loyalty to any group and a greater focus on personal rather than collective goals. The second is the affluence of society. As people begin to prosper, they gain financial independence from each other, a condition that promotes social independence as well as mobility and a focus on personal rather than collective goals. The third factor is heterogeneity. Societies that are homogenous or ‘ tight ’ (where members share the same language, religion, and societal customs) tend to be rigid and intolerant of those who veer from the norm. Societies that are culturally diverse or ‘ loose ’ (where two or more cultures coexist) are more permissive of dissent – thus allowing for more individual expression.

While it is clear that individualistic cultures differ from collectivistic cultures, individualistic cultures can, and do, differ from other individualistic cultures. The same can be said of collectivistic cultures. Some individualistic cultures, for example, link self-reliance with competition, while other individualistic cultures do not. Some collectivistic cultures emphasize in-group harmony above all else, while other collectivistic cultures do not. To account for some of these finer distinctions among individualistic and collectivistic cultures, Harry Triandis and his colleagues differentiate between vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism. According to them, horizontal individualism is a cultural orientation where an autonomous self is valued but the individual is more or less equal in status to others. The self is perceived as independent but nevertheless the same as others. Vertical individualism is the cultural orientation where an autonomous self is also valued but the self is seen as different from and perhaps unequal to others. Status and competition are important aspects of this orientation. France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States are examples of vertical individualism, whereas Australia, Denmark, and Sweden are examples of horizontal individualism. Horizontal collectivism is the cultural orientation where the individual sees the self as a member of an in-group whose members are similar to one another. The self is interdependent and the same as the self of others. Equality is expected and practiced within this orientation. China is probably a good example of horizontal collectivism. Theoretical communism is an example of extreme horizontal collectivism. Vertical collectivism is the cultural orientation in which the individual sees the self as an integral part of the in-group but the members are different from one another, some having more status than others. The self is interdependent, and inequality within the group is valued. In this orientation, serving and sacrifice are important. Japan, India, and rural traditional Greece are examples of vertical collectivism.

When living or doing business in individualistic or collectivistic nation you should consider how cultural differences impact business conduct, communication, decision making, and conflict resolution. Communication patterns develop very differently in individualistic and in collectivistic cultures. In the latter, where communication is shaped to protect relationships, the rules governing directness and emotional expression, for instance, are quite constraining when communicating within the group and relatively loose when communicating with people outside one's group. In collectivistic cultures, indirectness is used as a vehicle to save face ( respect, honor, status, reputation, credibility, competence). Individualistic cultures permit more direct expression in most circumstances where self-expression trumps relationship. Being too indirect can be seen as a sign of weakness, and it is associated with a lack of self-assurance. For example, people coming from individualistic cultures often have difficulty understanding when "yes" means "yes" and when "yes" means "no" in collectivistic cultures. In collectivistic cultures, to say "no" to someone of superior rank—especially in face-to-face situations—dishonors them. Thus, people from individualistic cultures need to learn the more subtle cues that indicate whether "yes" means "yes" or whether "yes" means "no."The use of silence is another form of communication that typically means something different in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. In individualistic cultures, silence is the absence of communication or, alternatively, implicit agreement with what is being said ("silence means consent"). In collectivistic cultures, silence can be a powerful mode of communication. It can mean agreement, but it also can mean profound disagreement. People in collectivistic cultures who have been oppressed by individualistic cultures will sometimes test the sincerity of their individualist counterparts. For example, in Native American cultures historically oppressed by Europeans, Native Americans tend to notice how well Europeans are able to remain silent without interrupting Native Americans who are speaking. Body language is also an important form of communication. In individualistic cultures, children being scolded are typically expected to maintain eye contact with their elders as a way of showing respect and sincerity. In many collectivistic cultures, however, the exact opposite is expected: the child being scolded is expected to look down and avoid eye contact with their elders. Finally, expressions of emotion vary from culture to culture. Giggling may be a sign of agreement or solidarity (especially around something that is perceived as humorous) in individualist cultures, but it is frequently a sign of nervousness in collectivist cultures. As to individuals' decision making, there are three ways in which individualistic and collectivistic values can influence it (Güss, C.D). These values can influence the perception of the problem, the generation of strategies and alternatives, and the selection of an alternative. Individuals from collectivistic cultures pay much more attention to the social aspects of problems. They perceive a problem based on the judgment if the problem concerns more about themselves or the people around them. People with individualistic values, on the other hand, put more attention to the individual aspects of problems. They will react faster if the problems deal with the self. Once they have identified the problem, the generation of strategies and alternatives has to go along with the values. People in individualistic cultures prefer active, assertive and confrontational strategies for resolving conflicts, as well as have more confidence in their personal decisions and might, therefore, be more decisive and risky than people in collectivist cultures in their decisions. Individualistic cultures will make a decision that can benefit them. On the other hand, the strategies and alternatives generated from collectivistic cultures will put greater emphasis on relationship with others. It means that if they are not in line with the society's expectation, the strategies and alternatives might be rejected. (Imagine a situation where an employee is being offered a position because of favouritism. In individualistic cultures, he or she is more likely to accept it though he or she is aware that others know that he or she is being promoted because of favouritism. Yet, he or she will still take it because it can benefit him or herself. On the other hand, if that employee is in collectivistic cultures, he/she is more likely to refuse the promotion because he/she feels bad to others. The fact that he/she is chosen not because of performance but of favouritism may create enough discomfort already). The way they choose an alternative is also deeply influenced by the cultural values. Individualistic countries are much or less dominated by values like personal achievement, growth, and advancement. They will prefer a decision that emphasis on self-improvement. When they fail to reach consensus, they will turn to majority vote as it allows each individual to voice out their opinion. Meanwhile, collectivistic cultures will prefer a decision that puts emphasis on the significance of relationships, roles and status within the social system. People from collectivistic countries are more likely to ask approval from others before making a decision because they do not want to ruin their relationship. They also favour consensus when it comes to group decision that enhance relationship and harmony. (A dissatisfied employee, for instance, decides to quit his job. If his values are influenced by individualistic values, he will quit his job because it is the right thing to do for him. However, this is not the case if he is from collectivistic cultures. He might stay on the job because his parents or families expect him to be successful in the job. Or, there is also a high possibility that he will discuss furthermore with his peers/families whether he should quit the job or not). There is evidence that members of different cultures tackle conflict situationsdifferently. Research has shown that since people in individualistic cultures attempt to save and protect their own face (respect, honor, status, reputation, credibility, competence) they prefer direct, overt, active, assertive, controlling, and confrontational styles such as dominating and competitive styles and are more likely to push for speedy closure. In some circumstances, they will adopt a policy of compromise, with the intention of later returning to the conflict when conditions are more favorable for winning. Correspondingly, people in collectivistic cultures use more accommodating and avoiding styles. They will prefer strategies that are more indirect or allow conflict to remain subtle, unspoken, so as to promote mutual face-saving (remaining calm, mindful listening, apologizing, compromising, intentional reframing, practicing collaborative dialogue, and problem solving). Therefore, individualists finding themselves in conflict within a collectivistic culture or with an individual from a collectivistic culture would do well to keep the following in mind. First, they should be aware of face-saving concerns, especially in terms of balancing humiliation and pride, respect and disrespect, and shame and honor. Second, they should be patient and observe mindfully, and give themeselves a few seconds before responding. Considering that collectivists tend to focus on «how» questions, they should be aware of this and limit their «why» questions. Third, they should be mindful listeners and pay attention to nonverbal cues. For collectivists engaging in conflict with individualists, another set of recommendations may be applied. First, they should try to be assertive and practice a conflict communication style that allows everyone the right to speak equally. Second, they should use "I" statements and ask more «why» questions. Third, as mindful listeners, they should paraphrase often and learn to occasionally verbalize their emotions, attitudes, and experiences within the conflict situation itself. That is, they shouldn't rely too heavily on nonverbal cues or count on others to read theirs.

Finally, let us stress some advantages and disadvantages of collectivistic and individualistic cultures. As individualism emphasizes personal freedom and achievement individualistic culture awards social status to personal accomplishments such as important discoveries, innovations or great artistic achievements. In addition, strongly voiced opinions can lead to robust discussions and debates, resulting in processes that are more efficient. On the other hand, individualism can make collective action more difficult because individuals pursue their own interest without internalizing collective interests. Resistance to cooperation can result in inferior products or services if employees aren't working together. Powerful opinions can lead to workplace clashes with colleagues or managers. Correspondently, collectivism makes collective action easier in the sense that individuals internalize group interests to a greater degree, provides a strong harmony, teamwork and minimizes confrontations. However, it also encourages conformity and discourages individuals from standing out, in addition, it lacks creativity and openness to opinions. There are some more failings of collectivistic and individualistic cultures. Sometimes people in individualistic cultures can become selfish, greedy, lonely, etc.: selfish because of a self-focus as they can obtain as much as they have ability for their own pursuits, and lonely because there is less focus on groups such as family. Many individualistic cultures do not have strong family ties as various members of the family are off doing their own things. People in collectivist cultures can have a strong fear of rejection. The failure to accomplish something that is expected brings much shame. Elders who instill collectivist rejection rules in youngsters are often rejected by foreign direct investment from individualist capital.

These are, of course, extremes. It is important to remember that no society can be either exclusively individualistic or collectivistic. According to Triandis, functional cultures are a mixture of each. Cultures that are severely individualistic or collectivistic would be severely dysfunctional. A culture that would contain all individualistic people would be a society of narcissists. There would be high rates of crime, divorce, and child abuse. On the opposite side of the continuum would be a pure collectivistic society that would ostracize anyone not closely associated with the “in-crowd.” This would result in situations of ethnic cleansing and oppression. As not all cultures are wholly individualistic or collectivistic, aspects of each can occur in an organization. Robert Axelrod has suggested three ways of promoting and creating cooperation within an organization. First, changing payoffs to make cooperation more appealing and defection less attractive can enhance cooperation. For instance, by making individual rewards contingent on cooperation in teams. Therefore, managers should carefully construct reward schemes in order to demonstrate the cooperative behavior they are hoping to achieve. Second, emphasizing the future of the organization and allowing members to use the threats in order to reduce defection can reinforce cooperation. In other words, if an employee can't contribute to an organization's goals, then out the door they go! This illustrates that longer time horizons, specifically manifested in lower employee turnover, can contribute to cooperative decision-making. Third, teaching people values, facts, and skills that will promote cooperation, such as the importance of reciprocity and how to recognize social norms can enhance cooperative orientations.

Unit 2 Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures

I. Comment on the proverbs.

II. Starting up

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: