A Discussion of the Impact of Individualism and Collectivism on Employee Performance
CHAPTER І
A DISCUSSION OF THE IMPACT OF INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
Over the last 30 years there have been many comparisons of Japanese and American business practices. There has been much research done on the positive and negative effects of both practices and the root of such differences. Typically the Japanese culture is known as a collectivist culture that places higher value on harmony and group continuity rather than individual accomplishment. Americans are usually categorized as an individualistic society whose focus is on the individual and his accomplishments as being good for the group.
This paper is going to examine the definitions of collectivism and individualism in terms of behavior. The definitions of collectivism and individualism are sometimes ambiguous, and the ways we measure different levels of collectivism and individualism are ambiguous (Takan & Osak, 1999). Generally speaking, the two cultures are essentially opposites in terms of collectivism and individualism, but the terms need to be defined in terms of business psychology and the different ways they impact the way employees behave.
Given the assumptions made about the cultures, we would assume that stress and expectations would be higher in America, but DeFrank and Matteson (1985) compared CEOs’ attitudes and stress levels and found that Japanese CEOs were more stressed and less positive about their jobs and general happiness. DeFrank and Matteson hypothesized that the collective nature of the society required them to spend more time with work and to be more directly involved. This directly affects their happiness because it limits their personal and family time in comparison with their American counterparts.
Another factor we need to consider is that the practices of business are affected by the culture they are in but that ultimately it is the companies themselves that define the working dynamics. For
A DISCUSSION OF THE IMPACT OF INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
Over the last 30 years there have been many comparisons of Japanese and American business practices. There has been much research done on the positive and negative effects of both practices and the root of such differences. Typically the Japanese culture is known as a collectivist culture that places higher value on harmony and group continuity rather than individual accomplishment. Americans are usually categorized as an individualistic society whose focus is on the individual and his accomplishments as being good for the group.
This paper is going to examine the definitions of collectivism and individualism in terms of behavior. The definitions of collectivism and individualism are sometimes ambiguous, and the ways we measure different levels of collectivism and individualism are ambiguous (Takan & Osak, 1999). Generally speaking, the two cultures are essentially opposites in terms of collectivism and individualism, but the terms need to be defined in terms of business psychology and the different ways they impact the way employees behave.
Given the assumptions made about the cultures, we would assume that stress and expectations would be higher in America, but DeFrank and Matteson (1985) compared CEOs’ attitudes and stress levels and found that Japanese CEOs were more stressed and less positive about their jobs and general happiness. DeFrank and Matteson hypothesized that the collective nature of the society required them to spend more time with work and to be more directly involved. This directly affects their happiness because it limits their personal and family time in comparison with their American counterparts.
Another factor we need to consider is that the practices of business are affected by the culture they are in but that ultimately it is the companies themselves that define the working dynamics. For
References: Baily, M., & Solow, R. M. (2001). International Productivity Comparisons Built from the Firm Level Bolton, M. (1993). Imitation versus innovation: Lessons to be learned from the Japanese. Organizational Dynamics, 21(3). 30-45. Brunger, S., & Kim, Y. (1997). Effects of Japanese Investment in a Small American Community . Commack, New York: Nove Science Publishers Inc.. Chan, D., Gelfand, M., Triandis, H., & Tzeng, O. (1996). Tightness-looseness revisited: Some preliminary analysis in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 31(5), 1-11. DeFrank, R., Matteson, M., Schieger, D., & Ivancevich, J. (1985). The impact of culture on the management practices of American and Japanese CEOs. Organizational Dynamics, 13(4), 62-75. Gardner Jr.,E., & Ivancevich, J. (1994). Productivity in the U.S. and Japan: Reexamination. Interfaces, 24(6), 66-73. Goodstein, L. (1981) Commentary: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 10(1). 49-54. Hamilton, V., & Hagiwara, S. (1992). Roles, responsibilities, and accounts across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27(2), 157-179. Hiiraoka, L. (2001). Global Alliances in the Motor Vehicle Industry. Westport, Conneticut: Greenood Publishing Group Inc. Ishii, K., & Kurzban, R. (2008). Public goods games in Japan. Human Nature, 19(2) 138-156. Keller, M. (1993). Collision. New York, New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc. Kwok, L., Yuk-Fai, A., Fernandez-Dols, J., & Iwawaki, S. (1992). Preference for methods of conflict processing in two collectivist cultures. International of Psychology, 27(2) 195-209. Lesse, S.(1984). Individualism vs. Collectivism. American Journal of Pschotherapy, 38(2). 161-163. Marsland, S., & Beer, M. (1983). The evolution of Japanese management: Lessons for U.S. managers. Organizational Dynamics, 11(3), 49-67. Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S., Kounetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998). The contribution of individualism vs. collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2). Niikura, R. (1999). Assertiveness among Japanese, Malaysian, Filipino, and U.S. white-collar workers. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(6), 690-699. Shipper, F., & Manz, C. (1992). Employee self-management without formally designated teams: An alternative road to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 48-61. Stening, B., & Everett, J. (1994). Responses in a cross-cultural managerial study. Journal of Social Psychology, 122(2). 151-156. Takan,Y., & Osak,E. (1999). An unsupported view: Comparing Japan and the U.S. on individualism/collectivism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3) 311-341. Takemura, K., & Yuki, M. (2007). Are Japanese groups more competitive than Japanese individuals? A cross-cultural validation of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. International Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 27-35. Torrence, W. (1984). Blending east and west: Difficulties along the way. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 23-34. Yamaguchi, S., Greenwald, A., Banaji, M., Murakami, F., Chen, D., Shiomura, K., Kobayyashi, C., Cai, H., & Krendl, A. (2007). Apparent universality of positive implicit self-esteem. Psychology Science, 18(6), 498-500.