Introduction
Individualism and collectivism represent opposite ends of a wide spectrum. Individualism is a frame of mind or a world view that is governed by the need to protect and take care of oneself. Those societies that are labelled as individualistic are those ones that have minimal ties between members of society. Such people are only concerned about their personal needs and those of their immediate families. However, collectivism represents a society in which people have very strong ties with one another. Usually, such groups are born into these in-groups and they are expected to pledge their loyalty to the latter belief systems. In exchange, such persons are guaranteed protection and this is essentially the motivational factor in this system. The paper shall examine the United States and China with respect to individualistic or collectivistic cultures.
The USA as an individualistic culture
In order to ascertain whether the US is an individualistic culture, it is essential to familiarise oneself with the traits synonymous with the individualistic culture. In such a culture, people normally empathise with their own goals and can also be considered as self centred. Additionally, such people communicate quite uniquely. In individualistic cultures, communication systems rarely make differences between out-group and in group communication. Consequently, their means of communication are also distinctive to this development. Most people who come from individualistic cultures tend to prefer using very direct and clear methodologies in communicating. This means that one is not likely to find them beating about the bush. (Hofstede, 1993)
Success is a common goal in individualistic cultures. Usually, such persons take pride in private wealth or good job positions. It is usually common to find such people struggling to get up the corporate ladder. Such persons may not care much about what or who they have to eradicate in order to make it to the top. Besides these, these cultures are normally fond of creating business relationship that will benefit them personally. Normally connections are made in order to boost one’ chances of making it i.e. they are well calculated. This also means that such cultures rarely pay attention to the mutual value that can come out of having a business relationship with another person and pay more attention to what that business relationship can do for them.
In individualistic cultures, it is also common to find that employees found there are mostly interested in protecting their interests. This is the reason why law suits and litigations filed against one’s employers are more common in individualistic societies than in collectivistic ones. Also, employees in these cultures are normally expected to take care about their own interests rather than looking out for the interests of others. (Chen, Meindl & Hunt, 2001)
It should also be noted that this culture deals with problems in different ways to their collectivistic counterparts. Most individualistic people concern themselves with how they can change their environments to suit their circumstances. This is the same approach in problem solving; they always consider how other goals around them can be shifted to accommodate their needs.
The United States was ranked as the country with the highest rate of individualism in the world. Hofstede conducted experiments where he wanted to study the level of collectivism and individualism in respective countries. These were his findings on cultural dimensions;
PD= Power distance, ID = Individualism, MA = Masculinity, UA = Uncertainty Avoidance, LT = Long Term Orientation, H= top third, L = Bottom third, M = Medium third
Country PD ID MA UA LT
USA 40L 91H 62H 46L 29L
China 80H 20L 50M 60 118
Source: Hofstede, p 91, 1993
Consequently, people from the latter country are likely to emanate from the collectivistic rather than the individualistic school of thought. Many leaders in the American culture have shown individualistic tendencies from time to time with some of them remarking that society as it is not a valid entity. Instead, more emphasis should be on the person as they are. In fact, one American president remarked that ‘ask not what your country can do for you bruit what you can do for your country.’ While the latter statement can be deemed as a patriotic one, it epitomised the individualist culture inherent in the United States. (Chen, Meindl & Hunt, 2001)
People in the US are independent minded. Most of them take control of their destiny. It should also be noted that in the US, rarely do people refer to relationships or group identities to gain a sense of belonging. Most of them tend to more inclined to deal with their own kinds of problems as they are.
These individualistic ideas among Americans are usually highlighted when Americans have to interact with members from other cultures of the world. When a US citizen is in such a position where they have to teach members of another culture about something, they usually focus on equipping that recipient with the right skills and knowledge required to make future decisions for their benefit. However, this is not the case among collectivistic cultures. Usually, members of the latter culture prefer learning in order to boost their respective ideals and beliefs so as to propagate their traditions.
Americans also fall in the individualistic groups because when in groups, one is likely to find that an American would be more comfortable speaking out and expressing oneself than if he/she was required to absorb the facts in a group. Debating is a common thing in the United States and citizens of this country do not fear confronting one another regardless of the fact that it may be a corporate situation or private function. In close association to this is the fact that Americans much like their other western counterparts are fond of giving complements to their workmates or friends. Most of them may not be shy when it comes to standing out or doing something out of the ordinary. (Birnbaum-More, Wong and Olve, 1995)
People within the United States tend to be self reliant. They usually assume that if they can do their part, then every other thing will fall in place. This also means that a large percentage of them are also encouraged to be very competitive. They are usually expected to treat others as competitors in order to curb some of the problems that they are likely to deal with.
Americans tend to look for new things; they are often searching for that paradigm shift and are ready to embrace change more readily that their collectivistic counterparts. Besides this, it is also possible to find that the largest portion of Americans are forgiving and are more tolerant to mistakes than the other categories. Consequently, business men venturing into the American culture may find that they have to embrace more honesty (since Americans readily express themselves). They must also be ready to be very competitive or to stand out from the crowd.
Experiments have been conducted to determine whether Americans really belong to the collectivist school of thought or the individualist school of thought. For instance, in the year 2001, an experiment was conducted to determine these latter issues. The experiment was carried out among both American and Japans children. These children had been asked to observe certain marine life swimming in the waters. The fish were swimming in the midst of a vast array of sea plants and objects such as sea weeds, rocks and sand dunes. (Wang, 2004)
The American children described the fish in terms of its personal attributes; for instance, they used statements such as ‘the fish are moving towards the sand dune’ on the other hand Japanese children said that the sand dunes drew the fish. Also, when asked about what they remembered in the marine objects. American children tended to describe the fish itself. On the other hand, the Japanese children tended to remember aspects such as the sand dunes and the see weeds; these were all revolving around the environment. Through this simple experiment, it can be seen that American tend to focus on the subject matter; a characteristic that is synonymous to individualistic tendencies. Additionally, they tend to separate out various elements of the system instead of viewing it from a holistic angle as was seen through the American children.
In order to understand more about China and in order to determine whether they fall in the individualistic culture, it is essential to first understand some of the characteristics that are synonymous with this culture. In collectivist cultures, companies that only cater for their own self interests are likely to be treated as cold and unsupportive. Consequently, such societies often refer to the term ‘we’ rather than the term ‘I’. Loyalty and harmony are the key features that characterise such economies. Disagreements in such cultures are not addressed in public. Instead, such people are fond of dealing with them on a personal level.
Even communication mechanisms in collectivistic cultures are very distinct. Usually, what happens is that statements are used to highlight one’s displeasure with a business idea. It is very difficult to find such cultures openly rejecting an adversaries’ ideas. In fact, their rejections are usually implied rather than clearly stated. Also, collectivistic cultures are characterised by holistic views. For instance, when a particular business man is trying to make a deal with a potential partner, that representative is likely to look out for the best interests of the company rather than their own interests.
Respect is another important feature of the collectivistic culture. Usually, in such places, every social position is granted a social value. Therefore, members of that society must take care to adhere to those values. This also means that members of the collectivist group tend to respect authority and hierarchical systems. They usually feel as though the person who should be making the decision should be the one with the highest form of authority. (Shenkar, O. & Ronen, 1993)
Collectivist people are essentially characterised by the need to change themselves in order to fit their environments. In other words, such people place a lot of focus on the external; to them the external is what determines the changes that go on in the internal environment. Therefore, one must not try to fool themselves that they can change their environment when this is not possible after all.
After analysing some of the characteristics that make up the collectivistic
character, it is essential to examine whether members of the Chinese community fall under this category. A number of studies have been conducted in China to determine whether or not they are collectivists. One such example was an experiment conducted by an American - Christopher Earl during the year 1989. At that time, he utilised a total of eighty four subjects for the social experiment. Half of these representatives came from South China while the other half were Americans. It was necessary to find out how these two separate groups would carry out a series of tasks that the researcher had chosen. The tasks ranged from rating application forms for job candidates to writing memos to evaluating plans for the company.
Of the forty participants from each country, half of them were required to do tasks anonymously and then hand them in. Additionally, the other half was required to write their names in those talks. Besides the latter, half the participants were given the tasks that required the use of group goals while the other half were given individual based goals.
The results of the test were very insightful into the cultures of the Chinese, the study found that the Chinese were actually very collectivistic, they preferred working anonymously and in groups. This is because the way those tasks were performed was much better in the latter state than when people were expected to work individually. On the other, hand, it was found that Americans were quite different. Most of them did very well when their work was attached to their names and when they were responsible for their own destiny. This means that they are on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Hofstede did a lot of research examples in order to determine whether or not they were collectivistic. Hofstede (1991) did a very diverse study involving a series of factors that were chosen in order to place those specific individuals in a category. He used a total of one hundred and sixteen participants for his study and the following aspects were being sought in his experiment;
• Masculinity
• Individualism
• Power distance
• Uncertainty avoidance
Many theorists have realised the importance of the individualism versus collectivism index. This is because is an important factor that denotes what kind of culture is relevant within a certain country or society. Hofstede (1991) described this trait as the degree to which persons within a certain country choose to act as individuals rather than members of a group. Consequently, from this definition, one can assert that collectivism refers to those groups that are oriented towards the group and preserving its own harmony.
Many researches in this culture have found that most Chinese are highly collective. Also, these researchers found that most of the western based Chinese management theories are not applicable in this country because most of them hardly take into account the fact that there could be other approaches that include the social aspect or social needs.
The latter assertions were confirmed by studies conducted in this country. Some researchers found that in Hong Kong, those Chinese managers had such higher regard for social needs that their counterparts in the western world. Additionally, it was also found that most of them had very little concern for self actualisation that was based on personal interests. Instead, Chinese managers place more emphasis on self actualisation that can emanate from the services rendered to society. The latter quality was more valued here.
Studies surrounding the Beijing Olympics have also indicated that the preparations and presentations made in that Olympic are more in line with the collectivist approach rather than the individualist one. Even interpretations made by participants in the Beijing Olympics are reflective of this kind of approach. (Hsu, 1993)
For example when some Chinese children were seen marching in the Beijing Olympics, they were seen by their fellow Chinese as symbols of harmony and perfect blending. However, in the eyes of a western observer, this was not the case; the western observer regarded this as a a combination of elements. In fact the western observer may consider the pitches of the respective singers instead of the overall outcome.
In fact, findings have also supported the notion that the Chinese are very collectivistic in nature. For example in the year 1991, a study was conducted in order to find out whether the Chinese posses this trait, the study revolved around the death of a student in Iowa who had been killed by another student of Chinese descent. It had been established that the murder was because this Chinese student felt that the victim had taken his opportunity for getting a dissertation prize. Both Chinese and English based media were chosen as avenues for the research. The aim of the research was to find out whether different cultures would blame the environment or the particular individual. (Fitzpatrick et al, 2001)
It had been found that the Chinese media focused on reports about the assailant’s environment. For example, he had been isolated by the rest of society and did not feel like he was part of it. On the other hand, western media focused on personality factors restricted to the individuals.
Additionally, some students were asked about what they thought about the murderous incident. It was established that most Chinese students felt that situational factors were largely to blame. On the other hand, American students enlisted internal factors.
Whether collectivism or individualism is more favourable in the global business arena
One should be aware of the fact that collectivism and individualism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is possible to find that a certain society is individualistic in their business arena and collectivistic in their personal lives. In other circumstances, society may be individualistic (such as Germany) but their communication style tends towards being collectivistic. For instance, Germans tend to start with details and then get to the point later while their American counterparts first start with the point and then get to the details. Consequently, the Germans have managed to fuse both elements of collectivism and individualism.
Research has also shown that modern day China is changing. More and more managers are embracing western ideals. This is especially the case for those managers who fall within the lower age bracket. For instance, in certain parts of China, it was found that individualism among young trainees for managerial positions was much higher among them than it was for the older generation.
Other related findings have also depicted the fact that Chinese have created their own form of individualism that has mirrored western ideals. Consequently, one can assert that the American way of thinking or decision making is fast catching up with China.
The latter findings have also brought out the fact that while the Chinese are still
categorised as collectivistic individuals, their work values do not necessarily reflect those values. Consequently, it is possible for these citizens to get along with others who have more individualist tendencies than they do. For instance, research show that the Chinese in Taiwan are very loyal (an attribute synonymous with collectivism). However, these citizens do not carry that loyalty to wok. At work, they apply a more individualistic approach. (Hsu, 1993)
The latter findings imply that the individualistic approach may be more favourable for cultivating global business relationships. This is because if the Chinese are already adopting such an approach to business, then it implies that they are open to change and that there are some elements that can be found in the individualist approach. In fact, it is very common to find that the Chinese are embracing a more individualistic approach to business. However, this is not the same thing when it comes to western based managers. The latter groups have not changed their approach in such a manner that they have adopted the collectivistic approach. They have managed to change other people’s perceptions but not their own.
In today’s highly competitive global arena, it is important for different groups to embrace the fact that there may more important contacts to be made or more important issues to address rather than those related top group dynamics. Companies are looking for the most cost effective and feasible approaches to business. This means that most of them will pay little attention to social relationships. Instead, more emphasis is placed on business related values. Consequently, the individualist approach is likely to be the most feasible of the two.
The collectivist approach to business may not be economically sound and its principles actually contradict these rules. For example, collectivists believe that one should have a lot of respect for authority. This means that when decisions are being made, then the highest form of authority in a certain business meeting or company is likely to be sought. Additionally, collectivists value the idea of saving face. Again, this may bring about a lot of complications in the future. This is because various parties may have trouble understanding one another. While the Chinese may be trying to reject a certain proposal, they may choose to do so by uttering so many statements about it. This may not make their stand clear and most of the time it may make situations a bit confusing. (Wong et al, 1999)
The collectivistic approach is also not very feasible in the global arena because it take up a lot of time. Because of the concern of loosing face, most Chinese prefer confronting their adversaries in person or in private. This approach would be favourable when there is a lot of time in the hands of the two parties. However, in cases where a person has to attend meetings after meetings, the collectivist approach of dealing with rejection personally may prove to be time consuming. This could prevent one from achieving their ultimate goals.
Business enterprises are founded on the assumption that resources ought to be allocated only to those groups that are the best / most cost effective or the team that is well prepared to deal with the challenge. Consequently, regardless of whether one belongs to a similar area or country as the respective businessman, there is no need to take resources to that group when they would not produce the best value for ones’ money. The collectivist approach goes against these assertions, because of the high regard and respect for family members and the ties that come with it, most Chinese may choose to conduct business with their family members. Consequently, this makes them less competitive; there may be another non –member of their society who can do a better job than their family relations. However, because of these collectivist tendencies, then resources go to the least deserving party; this diminishes competition and erodes the foundations of good commerce or trade. (Iwawaki & Leung, 1998)
It should also be noted that most of the assumptions made about the Chinese do not necessarily apply holistically to all of them. For instance the issue of passive fatalism refers to the coexistence of individualism and collectivism. Many people assume that the Chinese are always ready to sacrifice all their gaols and aspirations for the sake of the team. However, this is not necessarily true. Most Chinese are willing to embrace western ideals at the work place but live by their collectivist tendencies in other spheres of lie. Consequently, most of them are likely to be more open minded. This means that individualistic approaches in global business can prove to be possible in such an arena.
Conclusion
The American culture is individualistic while the Chinese culture is holistic. These assertions are supported by a series of experiments and studies. However, the Chinese in the workplace tend to adopt some elements of individualism thus depicting the fact that they are flexible enough to change. Consequently, the individualistic approach would be favourable in the global arena rather than the collectivistic approach. Additionally, the former is more business oriented than the latter.
References
Wong, N., Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1999): The role of gender and culture and in the relationship between positive and negative affect; Journal of Cognition and Emotion, 13, 2,641-672
Fitzpatrick, Tsorell, G. & Morgan-Fleming, B. (2001): Social values and self-disclosure: a comparison of Chinese native and North Americans; Journal of Comparative Family Studies; 37, 3, 113-127
Hsu, F. (1993): Americans & Chinese; University Press of Hawaii
Iwawaki, S. & Leung, K. (1998): Distributive behaviour and cultural collectivism; Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2, 19, 35-49.
Wang, Q. (2004): Autobiographical memory and self-description in European American and Chinese children; Developmental Psychology, 35, 40, 3-15
Hofstede, G. (1991): Cultures and Organizations - Software of the Mind; McGraw-Hill
Hofstede, G. (1993): Cultural Constraints in Management Theories; Journal of Academy of Management Executive, 7, 1, 81-94
Birnbaum-More, P., Wong, G. and Olve, N. (1995): Acquisition of Managerial Values in China and Hong Kong; Cross-cultural Psychology Journal, 26, 3, 255-275
Chen, C., Meindl, J. & Hunt, R. (2001): Tradition and Change: Cultural Adaptation in China; International Psychological Review, 3, 45, 6
Shenkar, O. & Ronen, S. (1993): The Cultural Context of Negotiations: The Implications of Chinese Interpersonal Norms; Routledge, 191-207
The author of this article is a holder of Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Harvard University and currently pursing PhD Program. He is also a professional academic writer. SuperiorWriters.Com>
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment