The business of international business is culture (original) (raw)

Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self-Ingroup Relationships

H a r r y C. T r i a n d i s , R o b e r t B o n t e m p o , a n d M a r c e The individualism and collectivism constructs are theoretically analyzed and linked to certain hypothesized consequences (social behaviors, health indices). Study 1 explores the meaning of these constructs within culture (in the United States), identifying the individual-differences variable, idio-centrism versus allocentrism, that corresponds to the constructs. Factor analyses of responses to items related to the constructs suggest that UrS. individualism is reflected in (a) Self-Reliance With Competition, (b) Low Concern for Ingroups, and (c) Distance from Ingroups. A higher order factor analysis suggests that Subordination oflngroup Goals to Personal Goals may be the most important aspect of U.S. individualism. Study 2 probes the limits of the constructs with data from two collectiv-ist samples (Japan and Puerto Rico) and one individualist sample (Illinois) of students. It is shown that responses depend on who the other is (i.e., which ingroup), the context, and the kind of social behavior (e.g., feel similar to other, attentive to the views of others). Study 3 replicates previous work in Puerto Rico indicating that allocentric persons perceive that they receive more and a better quality of social support than do idiocentric persons, while the latter report being more lonely than the former. Several themes, such as self-reliance, achievement, and competition, have different meanings in the two kinds of societies, and detailed examinations of the factor patterns show how such themes vary across cultures.

The Hierarchical Structure of Collectivism

Journal of Research in Personality, 1997

The existence of at least three interrelated, yet clearly distinguishable, subtypes of collectivism focused on relations with family (Familism), peers (Companionship), and society (Patriotism) was demonstrated. It was shown that various criterion groups (inhabitants of an isolated island, housewives with many children, servicemen, old members of sororities, etc.) have remarkably different patterns of collectivism: one group can be highly collectivistic in one domain of social relations and on the average level in some other domain. The different types of collectivism were also selectively associated with the results of the ''I am . . .'' Test and the Schwartz values questionnaire. Both hierarchical and confirmatory factor analysis revealed that these three sufficiently distinct types of collectivism share a common core which is superordinate to these particular forms of collectivism. This general, higher-order collectivism factor that likely affects all types of collectivism is related to two of the Big Five personality domains, Openness and Agreeableness, measured by the NEO Personality Inventory. Agreeable persons, who are also closed to experience, are comparatively more predisposed to absorb collectivistic elements from the culture into their own cognitive schemes. About one-third of the total variance of the measures of collectivism can be predicted from the measures of personality. This large proportion suggests that different collectivistic orientations have a common root in the relatively stable personality traits. © 1997 Academic Press , in his extensive study of more than 50 national cultures and multicountry regions, found individualism (I) versus collectivism (C) to be one of the most distinctive dimensions of cultural variation. The I/C was considered to be a unidimensional construct (with I on one end and C on the other), characterizing the closeness of relationship among the individuals within society.

The Myth of Individualism-Collectivism: A Critical Review

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2002

The authors critically assess the dimension of individualism-collectivism (I-C) and its various uses in cross-cultural psychology. They argue that I-C research is characterized largely by insufficient conceptual clarity and a lack of systematic data. As a result, they call into question the utility of I-C as an explanatory tool for cultural variation in behavior, suggest alternative dimensions for cross-cultural research, and interpret the weaknesses of research on I-C as illustrative of a general trend in social psychology. Key words: alternative dimensions, critical assessment, cross-cultural psychology, individualism-collectivism WHEN A WHOLE CULTURE or society is pigeonholed in dichotomous categories (e.g., masculine-feminine, active-passive, or loose-tight), subtle differences and qualitative nuances that are more characteristic of that social entity may be glossed over. Such descriptive labels evoke unduly fixed and caricature-like mental impressions of cultures or societies rather than representative pictures of their complexities. Also, presenting cultures in black-or-white terms not only clouds one's understanding of them but inevitably leads to good-bad comparisons (Sinha & Tripathi, 1994, p. 123). Since Hofstede's (1980, 1983) pioneering research that mapped 53 countries on four dimensions (power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-fem-We are grateful to Pavel S. Blagov for his assistance with preparation of this article. We would also like to acknowledge the participants in the Colloquium on Chinese Immigra

Individualism vs Collectivism in Different Cultures: A cross-cultural study

Intercultural Education, 2003

In this study, individualism vs collectivism, in line with the work of Triandis in 1985, was assessed in two groups of male and female students, in Egypt and Germany. The results confirm the effect that cultural background has on individualist vs collectivist orientations in both of these cultures for male and female students. Men and women scored higher on individualism in Germany than in Egypt, whereas collectivism scores were higher in Egypt than in Germany. These findings are discussed in terms of general recommendations for intercultural interventions that discourage viewing people solely in terms of group membership, and instead as distinct individuals.

National cultural differences and multinational business

Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions National culture has been shown to impact on major business activities, from capital structure to group performance (Leung et al, 2005). Cultural awareness can lead to greater success of international business ventures and lack of it can just as well lead to their failure (Dowling et al, 2008: 57). Geert Hofstede is a renowned author who developed a model to describe various cultural 'dimensions', and has researched issues relating to cultural differences (for example in the GLOBE Project). Geert Hofstede's model was based on a study of IBM employees in over fifty countries. He identified five dimensions or 'problem areas' which represent differences among national cultures (Hofstede, 1997): power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity and long-term orientation. Power distance defines how social inequality is perceived and accepted in different cultures. Hofstede (1997) explains how in high power distance cultures children are raised with a great emphasis on respecting elders, which is carried through to adulthood. Therefore organisations are more centralised, employees prefer a more autocratic leadership style where subordinates are expected to be told what to do and there are wide wage gaps in the hierarchical structure. On the other hand, in low power distance cultures inequality is not desired, employees prefer to be consulted with regards to decision making and thus prefer a more resourceful and democratic leader. Individualism (versus collectivism) is the preference of people to belong to a loosely knit society where importance is placed on the self and autonomy. In opposition, collectivist structures place importance on interdependent social units such as the family, rather than on the self. In individualist societies, employees require the freedom to work independently and desire challenging work (which is more important than personal relationships) that will help them reach self-actualisation. In collectivist cultures, unquestioned management structures are responsible for the organisation of teams of employees and the cohesion of the collective. According to Hofstede, masculinity represents cultures with distinct gender roles where men focus on success, competition and rewards while women focus on tender

Collectivism: Impact on Relationships

Collectivism, Effects On Relationships Collectivism is a cultural syndrome, a network of norms, values, and ways of engaging the world embedded in practices, artifacts, institutions, language use and structure, and w ays of making sense of history. A central theme of collectivism as a cultural syndrome is that relationships w ith relevant others and group memberships constitute the primary unit of society, the foundation of self-concept, and the key values that should govern one's life. Social units that share a common fate are centrally important from a collectivistic w orld-view , which highlights interdependence among ingroup members and relevant values, such as loyalty and perseverance. These social units can be broadly defined as groups with which a real or symbolic blood tie exists (families, tribes, races/ ethnicities, religions, nations, peoples) as well as, in some situations, civic (neigh borhood or community) or other working groups. Within a collectivistic perspective, each social unit feels tangible and real, and group members are obligated to and interdependent with each other. In this w ay, group memberships and the relationships they entail are permanent, fixed facts of life that are indefinitely obligating. Within a collectivistic perspective, individuals can only be understood within the context of the groups they belong to and in terms of their connections with particular others. Group memberships are assumed to be stable, impermeable, and central to self-concept. Fulfilling one's obligations to group members and collective welfare are therefore central to w ell-being, w hile communicating and pursuing one's personal goals and desires is assumed to be at best a secondary issue. The alternative to a collective perspective is an individualistic perspective in which the individual is the most basic unit of society. Individuals are defined by their ow n attainments and relationships, and group memberships have meaning only insofar as they facilitate the attainment of personal goals. This entry describes theory and research about collectivism and its effects on relationships. A collectivistic worldview should have important consequences for how relationships are conceptualized, what is perceived to be of value, and how the self is conceptualized. When perceived through a collectivistic view, a primary human goal is to maintain important group memberships and the necessary interpersonal relationships that group memberships create. This requires focusing on fitting in and appropriately engaging in social contexts. Figuring out w hat is appropriate requires skill in indirect communication (reading between the lines of communication and making inferences given context, tone of voice, and other cues) and the ability to restrain oneself, not stick out or offend ingroup others. To maintain harmony in relationships w ith ingroup others requires a heightened sensitivity to interpersonal contextual cues including concerns for belongingness, dependency, empathy, norms for reciprocity, and occupying an appropriate place within the relationship hierarchy. These relationships require detailed interpersonal know ledge and constant awareness of others, their needs, desires, and goals. Thus, satisfying one's own need to connect with others may best be met by satisfying others' needs. One perspective on how to fit in and anticipate the needs of ingroup others comes from an East-Asian Confucian-based perspective. From this perspective, individuals are socialized to effectively regulate and control their ow n emotional displays, smoothing out both displays of negative and positive emotions in settings w here either may offend others. Another perspective comes from African, Mediterranean, Middle-Eastern, and Latin perspectives that emphasize ingroup others as important sources of honor. Honor-based collectivism also emphasizes that the self is defined by ingroup others but does not necessarily focus attention on regulation of emotional expression. Rather, in these contexts, displays of anger, hostility, and other strong emotions can be appropriate w ays to mend and restore honor. A drawback of research to date on collective world-view and relationships is that it mostly contrasts Eastern (Asian) and Western (especially North American) societies, suggesting that results so far may be limited to a certain kind of collectivism. Engaging in collectivism-appropriate relationships requires that one's values, goals, and thoughts about the self make sense within these relationships. From a collectivistic perspective, relationships w ith others are not merely connected to self-concept; they are the central, defining feature of self-concept. Without one's relationships, one w ould not be the same person. In this w ay, collectivism is centrally defined by a connection between (rather than a separation from) the self and relevant others. Indeed, to make sense of gender differences and cross-cultural differences between Eastern (e.g., Japan) versus Western (e.g., United States) societies, researchers have contrasted interdependent and independent w ays of defining the self and linked these differences in self-concept to differences in

Variation of Individualism and Collectivism within and between 20 Countries A Typological Analysis

Journal of Cross-Cultural …, 2005

With data from a 20-nation study (N = 2,533), the authors investigated how individual patterns of endorsement of individualist and collectivist attitudes are distributed within and across national contexts. A cluster analysis performed on individual scores of self-reliance (individualist dimension), group-oriented interdependence (collectivist dimension), and competitiveness (individualist or collectivist dimension) yielded a typology of four constrained combinations of these dimensions. Despite the prevalence of a typology group within a given country, variability was observed in all countries. Self-reliant non-competitors and interdependent non-competitors were prevalent among participants from Western nations, whereas self-reliant competitors and interdependent competitors were more common in non-Western countries. These findings emphasize the benefits for cross-cultural research of a typological approach based on combinations of individualist and collectivist dimensions.