The reflections of individualism-collectism, power distance, and achievement-nurturing in organizations and people.

Let me briefly discuss of what is individualism-collectism, power distance, and achievement nurturing one by one. And first of all, you had to put in mind that they are among several types of key values that are important to any organizations. And why did I say that? Let me explain.

Individualism-collectism, as according to Gerard Hendrik Hofstede, are two contrasted word which is either the extent to which people are expected to stand up for themselves and to choose their own affiliations, or alternatively act predominantly as a member of a life-long group or organization. This type of culture defines how people think of themselves and their relationship with others. Individualism to me is more to the rights or freedom for workers to choose their own work style or any organizations that they want to work in. They work for how long they want to and usually prefer to work alone rather than in groups. People in this culture focus more on their individual goals rather than the group goals. Refers to Hofstede (2001, Exhibit 5.1, p. 215), USA is one of the most countries that practice individualistic culture. For examples, when they are meeting people for the first time, they want to know what that person does; they tend to look at their accomplishment, the way they dressed up, where they live, and so on. Individualist cultures are more remote and distant from others (Hofstede, 2001). On the other hand, collectism in my own word, are those who are willing and prefer to work and stay on one organization for a long time. They are more loyal and usually prefer to work in groups. Their goals to achieve are based on the group rather than individual. The cultures under collectism emphasize more on relationships among people. They stress interdependent activities and suppressing individual aims for the group’s welfare. Recent studies show that Latin Americans practice this kind of culture the most. They focus more on groups and rather than doing things alone. One example, there are this one Columbian who studied in US to get a PhD, teaches at a distinguished university there, and succeeds in publishing books. When he returns to visit Columbia, people to whom he is introduced will want to know to whom he is related to. Columbians want to know who his family is because that places him in society much more than what he had achieved in US.

According to other sources (Goncalo & Staw, 2006), individualism is a set of cultural values that emphasizes individual autonomy, the prioritization of personal goals over group goals, and the definition of one’s self in terms of one’s individuality and uniqueness from the group. Meanwhile, collectism is a set of cultural values that emphasize group harmony, the prioritization of collective goals over personal goals, and the definition of one’s self in terms of the groups one belongs to. Goncalo & Staw (2006) stated in their research that both individualism and collectism have pros and cons that affect organizations. They (Goncalo & Staw, 2006) both agreed individualism is better compared to collectism to the extent that individualism offers a more conducive climate for creativity than collectism. But for my own opinions, both of the culture has its pros and cons, and to be more specific, I would choose collectism over individualism. Yes, there might be a certain degree of problems working in groups as each people have their own different views on things. But the fact that there might be many different ideas and creativities, this culture can achieve goals efficiently in a nick of time and increase productivity in organization. Meanwhile, individualism might have low pressures on work, but they cannot create a high level of creativity towards organizations.

Power distance, as define by Hofstede (1997), is the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. It is the way the culture deals with inequalities. Hofstede believes that power distance is learned early in families. In my own word, it is based on what people learned since they were kid, what they are being thought by their parents, and how they are raised. In high power distance cultures, children are expected to be obedient toward parents in spite being treated more or less as equals. In high power distance cultures, people are expected to display respect for those of higher status. For example, in countries such as Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand, people are expected to display respect for monks by greeting and taking leave of monks with ritualistic greetings, removing hats in the presence of a monk, dressing modestly, seating monks at a higher level, and using a vocabulary that shows respect. Also, in countries with high power distance employees are too afraid to express their doubts and disagreements with their autocratic and paternalistic bosses. The index for power distance describes the dependence of relationships in a country.

Power distance also refers to the extent to which power, prestige, and wealth are distributed within a culture. It somehow represents the gap in power between a superior and a subordinate. In high power distance cultures subordinates and their bosses have a greater expectation that subordinates should unquestioningly follow directives. Cultures with high power distance have power and influence concentrated in the hands of a few rather than distributed throughout the population. These countries tend to be more authoritarian and may communicate in a way to limit interaction and reinforce the differences between people. In the high power distance workplace, superiors and subordinates consider each other existentially unequal. Power is centralized, and there is a wide salary gap between the top and bottom of the organization. In cultures high in power distance, for example, corporate presidents’ offices are more likely to be luxurious, with controlled access. Company bosses are “kings” and employees “loyal subjects” who don’t speak out. In the low power distance workplace, subordinates expect to be consulted, and ideal bosses are democratic. In more democratic organizations, leaders are physically more accessible.

Recent research by Hofstede (2001, Exhibit 3.1, p. 87) shows that Malaysia ranks the highest place for power distance culture. For me that was very true. Here in Malaysia, people are ruled by the government. Everything has to be and based on their way. And the people just follow the rules and regulations without hesitation. They are used to the culture. This somehow shows that there are gaps between the top level and the lower level management. Top people tend to ignore the lower level minorities and tend to ignore any ideas from them. In my own point of view, organizations should practice low power distance to make sure the workplace environment is good and comfortable for all level of workers and this can maintain employee loyalty towards the organization. Other than that, regards to the knowledge-based economy nowadays, it is good to maintain low power distance so that knowledge can be easily shared and disseminated among the employers and employees. Thus, this can raise the productivity within the organization.

The last key value that I will discuss here is the achievement-nurturing culture, in other words, masculinity-feminism. This culture captures the preference of both sexes for achievement over nurturing and cultures scoring high on masculinity are usually more achievement oriented. Hofstede (1980) defines the masculine cultures as those that strive for maximal distinction between what women and men are expected to do, while feminine cultures as those that permit more overlapping social roles for the sexes. He (Hostfede, 1980) stated that cultures which place high values on masculine traits stress assertiveness, competition, and material success while cultures that place high value on feminine traits stress quality of life, interpersonal relationships, and concern for the weak. Based on Hofstede (2001, Exhibit 6.3, p. 286), Japan rank the highest with masculinity culture and Sweden is the lowest, which is more to the feminism culture.

In my point of view, there are pros and cons for both masculinity and feminity cultures. Masculinity culture gives positive impact to the extent that people work hard to achieve their goals and they are most loyal in the organization. This can increase productivity in organizations. Feminity on the other hand, focus more on their feelings, their emotional behaviour, and can tend to be out focused depends on certain situations or problems i.e marriage problems, etc. This kind of culture however can also increase the loyalty of the worker by putting the workers needs as a priority, but at the same time, it can somehow reduce productivity of an organization if they are too focused on unimportant emotional feelings as this will cause them to less focused on their job or task.

Each values plays a pivotal role in organizations and people. It is proven in the discussion above. Since my high schools until now, I have experienced certain culture values as discussed earlier when I am having tasks or homeworks to be done. I learned a lot and it somehow reflects the way I do my tasks nowadays. As mentioned earlier, I would prefer collectism over individualism, low power distance rather than high power distance, and nurturing over achievement. It represents the way I like my work to be done. Well, people are different. Each person has their own culture which they are comfotable with.

References:

1. Goncalo, J.A. & Staw, B.M. (2005). “Individualism-Collectivism and Group Creativity.” Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Honolulu, HI.

2. Hofstede, G. H., Cultures and Organizations, McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe, England, 1991.
3. http://wikipedia.com