This is different from individualism, which expects individuals to only care for their own selves and immediate families, which can decrease their contribution to the overall society. Thornhill and Fincher (1) explain that many societies require the support, collaboration and partnership of its citizens and various stakeholders in order to advance and prosper, and that this is encouraged mostly by collectivism, not individualism. The reason for this is that collectivism promotes a very tight social interaction, where there is widespread respect, loyalty and support to members of the wider social group, not just the immediate
Personally, based on the above example, I think collectivism exists more within individualistic cultures than individualism in collectivistic cultures. Though different, collectivism and individualism both have value within their contexts and show the values of their people. Collectivism values the individual’s membership and participation in the group as a whole. Contrarily, individualism esteems the individual’s ability to separate himself from the group and think for himself. Though often not recognized, both of these dimensions can exist within a society and add depth to its
According to Hofstede’s Model, individualism is referred to a loosely-knit social framework. This means that individuals tend to care only for themselves and their own families, rather than the whole society. The term “collectivism”, on the other hand, can be defined as a preference for a tightly-knit framework, this kind of society represents individuals that are expected to think and take care of other members of the group and the society as a whole. The difference between these two divisions can be determined in terms of people’s self-image. People in collectivistic countries tend to live in terms of “we”, while people in individualistic countries prefer “I” position in their lives.
(2007). The connection between many cultural aspects and the positive productivity of any business has been found all through, according to Sorenson, (2002). In many occasions, it is possible to evaluate the effects of a business’ culture by reflecting on the way the employees behave and perform (Bulach, Lunenburg, & Potter, 2012; Hellriegel & Slocum, 2011). These authors say that the very important thing for businesses is to understand its culture and also allow their workers to understand the business organization’ history and their methods of operations. Walumba, F., & Lawler, J.
These differences contribute to the organizations ability to be flexible, generate problem solutions, relate effectively to a wide range of clients and to providing a balanced range of services. An organization can invest in developing effective employment programs and strategies that support diversity, but unless they have created an inclusive work environment, that celebrates and builds on differences and that is productive, rewarding, enjoyable and healthy for everyone concerned, they are likely to find that diversity creates more problems than it solves. They will be unable to take advantage of the benefits of diversity and are likely to have difficulty retaining employees. Work practices that make environments safe for all have achieved cultural competence and as a result are demonstrating cultural safety. Overall, this means that the workplace if spiritually, socially and emotionally respecting and appreciating different cultures and that there is no assault, challenge or denial of any person’s identity.
STRUCTURE (INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM) • This refers to the organizational structure which allows management to distinguish uncertain situations, ambiguity, stress and risk. Erraticism is mostly seen in the cultures of Western Europe and North America, while Marxism is mostly seen in the cultures of Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe. • For example, people who grew up in the United States are seen to be individualists, motivated by what is good for them personally, and independent and self-reliant. People who grew up in China (or most Asian cultures), on the other hand, are seen to be collectivists, motivated by the good of the group, relying on others and placing priority on the group rather than self. INDIVIDUALISM • Singularity shows the extent to which cultures elevate the role of the individual over the role of the group.
It works on low sociability and high solidarity. The workers are not socially active with their colleagues and they strive together to attain the business objective in an orderly manner. Priorities and agendas are put forward suddenly and all the employees are expected to follow without any room for arguments. A fragmented culture has both low sociability and solidarity working environments. The workers hardly interact with each other.
In the society of respect for individualism such as the United Kingdom, each person only considers their own interests, everyone is free to choose their own actions. In enterprise, the manager often makes his or her decision independently. The whole enterprise is just like a huge competition in personal unit. Employees may work harder to display their contribution in order to impress their superior for appreciation or reward. This also create the competitive business culture in the Great
The value systems of many Western societies emphasize individual achievement. The emphasis of on individualism in the United States help to create a dynamic entrepreneurial economy, raise the cost of doing business due to its adverse impact on managerial stability and cooperation. The dynamism of the U.S. economy owes much to the philosophy of individualism. However, the emphasis on individual performance in many Western societies has some harmful aspects. Individualism can lead to a lack of company loyalty and failure to gain company-specific knowledge, competition between individuals in a company rather than team building and limitation of people's ability to develop a strong network of contacts within a firm.
So, if an organization wants to be successful, it has to make sure that its employees are satisfied (Berry, 1997) as satisfied workers are more productive and help the organization in making it more effective (Robbins & Judge, 2007). Some researchers have found a positive relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction (DeCarlo & Agarwal, 1999; Finn, 2001; Nguyen, Taylor & Bradley, 2003; Thompson & Prottas, 2005). Employees with high autonomy feel free to process the tasks, make their own decisions and are accountable for their actions. As a result, they feel motivated and satisfied. In fact, some researchers state that intrinsically motivating jobs lead to increased satisfaction among employees.