Blog

Contracts in China: How Relationship-Based Cultures View Contractual Obligations

When you do business in China, you may come across a common contractual clause.

This clause stipulates that if issues arise, the contracted parties will discuss them and the contract may potentially be redrafted.

China is a relationship-based culture.

Someone from a rule-based culture, like most Western societies, will likely take issue with this clause.

Contracts are supposed to be black-and-white. They are supposed to be unambiguous. They are supposed to regulate specifically every aspect of the business relationship.

Contracts exist to effectively end the negotiation stage and begin working together.

The clause makes it clear that the contractual agreement may be renegotiated at any time. That means, for instance, when the parties do face a dispute, it might not go to court in the city in which the contract stipulates, but rather in a city court where the established law may work in the other party’s favor.

So, why even negotiate a contract in China? If it’s so ambiguous, what does the contract stand for?

Relationship-based Values vs. Rule-based Values

The relationship-based culture of China values a mutually beneficial and respectful business relationship. The contract is symbolic as such.

The contract signifies that personal relationships exist amongst the parties, therefore future disagreements may be negotiated.

While in Western cultures, a signed contract might mark the end of the negotiation process, in China – and in other relationship-based cultures – it marks the beginning.

You might think you’ve nailed down prices, but even those can be renegotiated days or weeks after signing.

Although those from Western cultures might see such a contract as pointless, its signing is still very important in relationship-based cultures.

In fact, it’s so important, that a contract signed with a Chinese company traditionally involves a luncheon or ceremony when making it official.

As soon as a contract is signed, it signifies that the two parties – especially the leaders – are publicly friends and will be respectful of their business relationship.

Relationships-to-Home Life

Relationship-based societies also view work life and personal life as inseparable to the point that “personal relations” and “business relations” are concepts that don’t exist in these societies.

That’s because company rules are dominated by relationships, particularly if an employee’s in-group is their family or tribe.

This means that if you have a conflict with an employee, it can often extend to a conflict with his/her family, kin, or any other member of his/her in-group.

Next week, we’ll discuss how this situation might manifest, along with other conflicts that crop up in business in relationship-based cultures.

The Do’s & Don’ts of Cross-Cultural Management: Unite

Imagine someone from another country was brought in to manage your office.

This manager, instead of adapting to your culture, tries to impose his own.

He enforces rules in the office that make no sense to you; rules which go against your values and norms.

How would you respond to this management style? Would you conform or rebel against it?

Last week, we talked about how social control is exercised through relationships in relationship-based cultures and how rule-based cultures believe in individual autonomy.

This week, we’ll discuss how a little understanding about these cultural intricacies goes a long way in business management.

Rules of Engagement

Successful cross-cultural managers know the do’s and don’ts of cross-cultural environments. Below are the basics.

Do:

Don’t:

  • Divide
  • Try to alter cultural values/norms
  • Be inconsiderate about cultural differences
  • Confront colleagues about these differences
  • Press upon touchy subjects

As with the scenario mentioned in the intro, when you are the monkey, you’re entering a culture as an outsider. Your focus shouldn’t be on magnifying your differences, but rather, trying to understand them. 

Uniting, not dividing.

Just as in the intro scenario, place yourself in the shoes of the worker being managed.

When confronted with a culturally insensitive manager, you wouldn’t appreciate some outsider coming in to change things that have been done a certain way for many years.

Maybe even hundreds or thousands of years.

Step 1 of Uniting: Win Over the Leaders

In a relationship-based society, you manage groups, not individuals.

But that does not mean there aren’t important individuals amongst these groups.

To win over the group, you must win over the leader.

So, the first step is to identify the leader(s).

Next, you must build up your relationships with that leader.

By zeroing in on the important person(s), establishing a relationship with him/her, and cultivating that relationship, you’re essentially doing the same with the entire group in a relationship-based culture. The person(s) at the top of the hierarchy is the most respected and influential.

It’s pretty simple: win over the leaders, and you win the followers.

You can do this by:

  1. Winning their trust
  2. Winning their respect
  3. Motivating them
  4. Inspiring them

We’ll talk more about dealing cross-culturally in relationship-based cultures next week.

Relationship- vs. Rule-Based Cultures: Socially-Based Control vs. Individual Autonomy

Imagine living in a culture where the village and the individual are one and the same.

That’s how the Bantu cultures of sub-Saharan Africa see things: an individual’s welfare is dependent on the village’s and vice versa.

One example of the way this manifests in the culture’s social norms is in their greeting.

The Shona people greet others with Maswere sei (“How is your day?”).

The response is Ndiswera maswerawo (“My day is OK if yours is.”).

Relationships are a fundamental part of the culture, so social control is exercised through relationships.

Last week, we talked about how cultures differ in their views of rules and relationships.

In the Shona society, certain relative figureheads are in authoritarian roles over subordinates in the family. Wives are subordinate to husbands, children to parents, younger siblings to older siblings, and all to the village elders.

The culture sees this subordination as natural. Subordinates don’t buck against the hierarchy, because it is the way of life, and the society’s baobab roots are formed and interconnected by relationships.

In contrast, rule-based cultures don’t see rules and relationships this way.

Human Beings as Autonomous Individuals

Rule-based societies view human beings as autonomous (i.e. having no natural authority over others).

As we saw in last week’s post, the authority in such cultures is rather embodied in the rules – rules that are applied to everyone.

This Western cultural concept can be traced back to God and the Ten Commandments.

God is seen as a lawmaker. He governs using universal rule of law.

The Greeks also influenced the West’s rule-based values, as they saw individuals as generally rational and rules as generally logical.

This idea is the basis of “homo economicus,” a principle in which a prosperous society is based on a logical and rational people.

It follows then that, in rule-based cultures, management and behavior is based upon the culture’s respect for rules.

Both cultural types have rules, but they differ in their relation to these rules in two ways:

  • In relationship-based cultures, the authority of rules is directly related to the authority of the person who lays down the law, while in rule-based cultures, rules are respected for their sake.
  • Moreover, in relationship-based cultures, supervision and shame ensure compliance with rules, while in rule-based cultures, fear of punishment and guilt are used for the same.

How This Difference Affects Business Relations

These complex differences can sew distrust between business partners.

Each culture views their own perspective on rules and relationships as just and right. In turn, they view the other’s perspective as corrupt.

Imagine this scenario, adapted from Riding the Waves of Culture:

A manager in a relationship-based culture offers his nephew a lofty position in the company, despite the fact that this nephew is unqualified.

A rule-based colleague of this manager tells his counterparts:

“They’ll always help their friends and family over more qualified candidates. It’s nepotism. They cannot be trusted.”

On the opposite side, the relationship-based manager sees his rule-based colleague pass up a friend for a position in lieu of a more qualified candidate.

He tells his team:

“He will not even help a friend? How can we trust him?”

In this way, cross-cultural business relations can be easily damaged or decimated, when the motives of other cultures are not understood.

Next week, we’ll talk about how to avoid this misunderstanding.

Rule of Law in Culture: Are Laws More Important Than Relationships?

A hypothetical scenario:

Your best friend is picking you up to head out on the town. As you head into the city center, you notice your friend is driving quite fast; 40 mph in a 20 mph zone down a crowded street.

You see a pedestrian take a step off the sidewalk ahead of your friend’s car. “Look out!” you shout. But it’s too late. Your friend accidentally hits the pedestrian.

An ambulance is called, paramedics try to save the victim, but he doesn’t make it. He dies on the way to the hospital.

Weeks later, you are called to court as a witness to the fatal accident. You know your friend was driving well over the speed limit, but if you tell the truth, he’ll go to prison. If you lie for your friend, he’ll walk away.

Would you lie? Or would you tell the truth?

Survey: Venezuela vs. USA

This was the exact scenario given in a survey sent to 46,000 managers in 40 different countries in a study by Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner.

As a preface, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions define the US is a rule-based society; Venezuela is a relationship-based society.

Knowing this, which society do you think would choose to be truthful in this matter? And which do you think might lie to protect a friend?

As you can see below, the results were exactly as you’d expect.

additional_charts_CMYK-02

96% of American citizens surveyed said that, when confronted with this situation, they would tell the truth and abide by the law. Only 34% of Venezuelans agreed.

The majority of those from the relationship-based society of Venezuela would protect their friend above the law, while the overwhelming majority of Americans would put their societal responsibility before their friend’s fate.

Everyone is Equal in the Eyes of the Law

Western cultures are largely rule-based or “universalist.” Generally, they believe that, in order to be just, established rules and laws should be applied universally.

According to the purest form of justice, all people – friend or stranger, rich or poor, black or white – should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. And, with that perspective, most people in a law-based society would strive toward the rule.

Rules and laws are also seen, more or less, as a black and white matter.

A red light at a pedestrian crossing illustrates the seriousness of law in a rule-based culture.

In Germany or Switzerland – both strict rule-based cultures – place a foot out of line when the pedestrian crossing light is red, and you will see the reaction. Those around you will make it clear – albeit, likely with only a frown – that they’re not happy with your disobedience, albeit likely just with a frown. Even if it’s 2 in the morning.

Laws in a rule-based society are also considered essentially permanent.

For instance, a law that is a law today is unchangeable; it will be the same tomorrow (unless, of course, it’s changed through an often lengthy democratic process that involves party votes and public opinion).

Not even the highest office in the country has the right to change the law in an instant; neither is this highest office immune to the laws.

Beyond the Individual

While rule-based cultures often align with a high degree of individualism, relationship-based cultures walk hand-in-hand with collectivism. This results in a different prioritization of social norms in individualist vs. collectivist cultures.

One Confucian ideal puts this in perspective: care for one’s parents/grandparents comes first; then comes care for one’s children; then, for oneself.

Collectivists see human existence as reaching beyond the individual; rather an individual’s existence is a symbiotic relationship with extended family, the tribe, the village, society. One’s connection to others is part of his/her existence. Existing apart from this is a form of death.

As such, relationships are highly important; oftentimes, more important than rules. The alternative is ostracism which is, again, death.

Imprisonment is a form of ostracism. Should you confess that your friend broke the law, thereby sending him to prison, you are virtually putting him to death.

In this way, you can see the stark and dramatic difference the truth would make in this matter.

In this way, you can see the difference in perspective between relationship-based and rule-based cultures.

In this way, you might begin to understand motivations across cultures.

The Employer-Employee Relationship Across Cultures: Concept of Self, In-groups & the Workplace

How do you view your relationship with your employer?

Do you see the employer-employee relationship as something of a family link?

Or is the relationship strictly professional and contractual?

The way you view this relationship is conditioned by your society’s concept of the in-group. As with many things, this concept is formed according to where your culture lies upon Hofstede’s cultural dimension spectrum of collectivist vs. individualist.

We are Family

Collectivist cultures view the employer-employee relationship as a moral one, a familial one.

Whether or not the company is the in-group, the company is expected to behave according to the in-group’s rules and values.

As we mentioned in last week’s post, the in-group usurps all.

Strictly Professional

On the other hand, individualist cultures see the professional relationship as a contractual one.

The structure and hierarchy of a company/organization are not expected to follow the rules and values of any in-group the individual employees are a party too. Rather, the employees submit to the structure of their company and their company culture.

Why?

It’s pretty simple: because the company is built for the owners/employers and customers, and it’s in the employees’ personal interest to align themselves with this structure. Otherwise, they’re out of work and their self-realization of upward mobility ceases.

Abstract Relationship vs. Social Fabric

Individualist cultures view employee/employer relationships abstractly.

The relationship is built on a contract. Salary in exchange for work…and, hopefully, some employee satisfaction.

Collectivist cultures view companies/organizations as part of the community’s social fabric.

Members are the vehicles of the company’s purpose and meaning.

The companies, themselves, are often run by a family/clan, which can often lead to family hiring and nepotism. As we mentioned last week, this is acceptable – and even expected – in collectivist cultures.

Benefits to senior managers and individual shareholders are not the end-all, be-all of the organization’s development and success in a collectivist society. Instead, the organization serves the society/clan.

Motivational Theories

This is why Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” Herzberg’s two-factor theory, and other models for human motivation, created by Western researchers, don’t withstand cross-cultural tests.

They do not account for the fact that human needs and human motivation (particularly, in the workplace) differ greatly across cultures, which means the incentives to motivate teams will too.

Concept of Self

These differences are related to the concept of self.

The individualist vs. collectivist perspective of self is, understandably, a topic well researched.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) wrote:

“People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the two. These construals can determine the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion and motivation.”

concept of self

This chart shows an overview of various nations’ concept of self.

The US falls on the individualist end of the scale, while Asian countries fall on the collectivist end. European countries lean toward individualism, while others – like India, Spain, and Russia – are more central, balancing individualist values and ideals with collectivist ones. The Middle East, African countries, Mexico, and Japan are more collectivist-leaning.

While this chart isn’t too surprising, the way self-concept manifests in cultures in the areas of cognition, emotion, and motivation varies.

We’ll talk more of self-concept next week.

No Absolutes

The bottom line is there are absolutely no absolutes when managing and motivating across cultures. Motivational tactics that work in an individualist culture may not work in a collectivist one.

As a Western manager, don’t become the monkey in your workplace. Know that there are no absolutes. Know that, just as individualism is not the only driver of economic success, individualist motivators are not the only possible drivers for your employees.

You must adapt. In collectivist cultures, manage groups instead of individuals.

Cross-Cultural Management: Understanding Motivating Factors for Different In-groups

As we discussed in a previous post, individualist motivational management is obviously very much centered around the individual.

Praise for outstanding work, recognition, both material and immaterial. “Employee of the Month” springs to mind.

For individualist cultures, being recognized for individual achievement means you are succeeding in your career – and at life.

But these same tactics do not always work in other cultures.

So, what does work?

Translating Cultural Dimensions into Workplace Management

In order to discover what works in managerially motivating across cultures, you must identify the in-group.

Last week, we talked about how economic success does not depend wholly on whether a culture is individualistic or collectivistic.

Rather, the in-group is what matters.

Whether company or country, in-groups are the primary drivers of workplace motivation.

Loyalty to groups is key to economic growth, and identifying the culture’s in-group can help you adapt your management style to the culture’s values.

In many collectivist cultures, the in-group is the family or the clan. The fact that it isn’t the company or oneself creates motivational differences from individualist cultures.

Learn Some Cultural Motivations

Diplomas – Diplomas are a way to climb the status ladder in collectivist cultures. Rather than seeing diplomas as paving the way toward the career ladder of better opportunities, diplomas are a door opening to a higher status group.

Because of this cultural perspective, diplomas are not sought to increase self-confidence in one’s abilities, but rather primarily to gain status.

Mobility – There are various types of mobility – occupational, geographical, hierarchical, etc. – and they are viewed differently across cultures.

In collectivist cultures, where the in-group is incredibly important, mobility across all types is lower, because it results in a change in one’s in-group.

Why?

If you have geographical mobility, you might leave your family. If you have hierarchical mobility, your in-group must approve of any upward change in position within your company, or this new position must be consistent with the role they’ve bestowed upon you.

An example: becoming the company boss of a clan elder is likely out of the question. The in-group’s hierarchy (which, in this case, is the clan) will always supersede that of a company’s organizational formalities.

Nepotism – Hiring or promoting family members/friends is seen as morally wrong in Western cultures, particularly if that family member has no qualifications for the role.

This is because individualist cultures view employees as “economic persons” who are motivated to pursue the employer’s interests if it aligns with their own self-interest.

Not so much in collectivist cultures.

One’s self-interest – and/or that of one’s employer – is always usurped by that of the in-group.

Therefore, nepotism in a collectivist culture would not only be acceptable, it would be expected.

One example of this in a collectivist culture: Burkina Faso’s former President Blaise Compoare not only hired family members to fill positions in government, but he also built a zoo and an airport in his village and supplied it with electricity (the only village with light for years, at the time).

While this action may have caused an uproar in a Western country, the culture saw Compoare’s actions as morally just. He was caring for his in-group, his people, which is seen as a positive thing in Burkina Faso.

Next week, we’ll talk more about the employer-employee relationship across cultures.

Does Individualism Drive Economic Development?

It’s the age-old question: do individualist cultures see more economic success than collectivist cultures (e.g. capitalism vs. socialism)?

We’ve mentioned how individualism vs. collectivism is one of the most important (if not the most important) of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. The degree to which a culture lies along this scale can determine much of the culture’s values and norms.

The West (the US and European countries, in particular) believes that economic development is fueled by individualism.

Is that the case?

The “Spirit of Capitalism”

Adam Smith, the author of The Wealth of Nations (considered “the Bible of capitalism”), wrote that the economic model of the West is rooted in the individual’s aspirations and initiative to earn money, build his career, and elevate his social standing.

He writes:

“The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this – no dog exchanges bones with another.”

And he wasn’t the only economist to believe so. Economist Max Weber coined the phrase the “spirit of capitalism,” which embodied the entrepreneurial spirit of the West, the desire to climb the social ladder and build a career, all of which was once believed by some to be the sole method of driving economic success.

However, as we discussed in a previous post, Japan disproved this theory by demonstrating that a collectivist culture, with its own values and norms, can boom economically as well.

Apart from the “Japanese Miracle,” business models like Kaizen’s steps to improvement and the quality circle provide positive outcomes and follow collectivist values.

The Lexus

An example of collectivist culture contributing to economic success:

I was invited to a presentation of the Lexus, a luxury Japanese car brand. The production process involved a unique manufacturing method put in place to guarantee top quality.

The car bodies were mounted in a large hall and transported along an assembly line of steps, in which each worker had his/her own task, like welding or screwing parts to the vehicle. A string hung from the ceiling at each step, allowing workers to stop the entire assembly line production if necessary.

Of course, pulling that string costs the company a fortune. But not doing so, if there is a quality issue, could cost them even more…and might even ding their reputation if left unchecked.

So, despite the costliness of pulling that string, when an assembly worker makes that decision, he’s greeted with cheers.

Why?

Because he took a bullet for the team, stepped up and disrupted the workflow, hopefully with reason. Nevertheless, the worker isn’t punished for putting quality over cost, which is why Lexus has a reputation for reliability.

In this way and many more, Japan has demonstrated that an individualist culture is not required for economic development. Both collectivist and individualist cultures have their strengths.

Next week, we’ll talk about the driving factor behind economic success in either type of culture.

Paternal Leadership in Collectivist Cultures: Care in Exchange for Obedience

We talked about directive and supportive leadership styles and behaviors in last week’s blog.

Research has shown that collectivist cultures respond to a hybrid of both these styles called paternal leadership.

What does paternal leadership look like?

Paternal Leadership

Paternal leaders are dominant authority figures (think patriarchs/matriarchs) who exhibit the following behaviors:

  • Treat employees like family members
  • Expect trust, loyalty, and obedience from employees
  • Listen to employees but makes the final decision
  • Promote social skills and education
  • Provide employee training for business and interpersonal skills

Leadership and Team Cohesiveness

A study by Hein Wendt, Martin C. Euwema, and I.J. Hetty van Emmerik, entitled “Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures” and published in The Leadership Quarterly, asserts that paternal leadership appeals to collectivist cultures.

“The present findings offer interesting insights and support the idea that indeed in collectivistic cultures, compared with individualistic cultures, leaders do behave more directive and more supportive at the same time. This reflects a typical paternalistic way of managing, in which the leader takes care of his employees, and in return demands obedience, which can be seen as representative for many collectivistic cultures.”

The study, which observed 140,000 employees across 615 worldwide companies, also found that directive leadership had a more negative impact on team cohesiveness in individualist cultures than it did in collectivist cultures. Moreover, supportive leadership had a positive moderating effect on team cohesiveness, no matter the culture.

This suggests that while some leadership behaviors are universally appealing, others are influenced by culture.

National Culture & Team Cohesiveness

One surprising result of this study is that team cohesion was not as influenced by national culture as had been hypothesized. Researchers assumed that collectivist cultures would be much more team-oriented than individualist cultures, but that wasn’t necessarily the case.

This may be because collectivist cultures don’t view the work group as a strong social identity when compared to individualist cultures. Work groups are usually composed of various levels of education, ages, statuses, and social backgrounds, making collectivist societies less prone to loyalty to “the group“.

The study concluded:

“In this group, traditional values of sacrificing for the sake of a group are less applicable compared to other types of referent groups.”

This means that, in a collectivist society, the conditions of loyalty to the group must develop over time before team cohesiveness is established.

On the other hand, individualist cultures saw high group cohesiveness, likely related to the level of importance of work, achievement, and job affiliation in individualist cultures. This made Western employees become more collectivist oriented in terms of teamwork.

Directive vs. Supportive Leadership: Which Style Works in Your Culture?

Say, you believe that the success of the team is more important than personal goals, ambition, and achievements.

If that were the case, what type of management style do you think you’d prefer?

Would you want a supportive, inclusive leader offering you relative autonomy? A work environment where everyone can freely voice their opinions and concerns and stand out from the crowd?

Or would you want a directive, authoritarian leader within a company culture where harmony is more important than self-expression?

We’ve talked about how collectivist cultures view the “group” as more important than self. We’ve also discussed that thegroup” differs across cultures.

The group one most values often directs its workplace norms and preferences, including what motivational factors are effective and what type of leadership is preferred.

As to the latter, two styles of leadership are applied in varying degrees across cultures: directive and supportive leadership. Let’s take a look at both.

Directive Leadership

What makes a directive leader?

Here are some directive leadership behaviors:

  • Being task-oriented
  • Demonstrating control over subordinates
  • Dominating interactions
  • Personally managing the completion of tasks
  • Supervising closely
  • Pressuring employees to complete targets accurately and efficiently
  • Focusing on time management

With a directive leader, employees are placed in a role of dependency – depending on the leader to direct every aspect of their task, including how and when to move forward. Employees under directive leaders often demonstrate little personal initiative.

A number of studies have shown directive leadership often contributes to lesser satisfaction and team cohesion. Moreover, directive leadership unsurprisingly leads to less open communication.

However, directive leadership can also result in higher productivity.

Supportive Leadership

What makes a supportive leader?

Here are some supportive leadership behaviors:

  • Meeting employee needs/preferences
  • Showing concern for employee welfare, individual/group needs, and conflict within the group
  • Encouraging a supportive work environment
  • Providing positive feedback
  • Fostering team cohesion and openness
  • Inviting employees to be part of the decision-making process
  • Promoting positive morale
  • Facilitating discussions (as opposed to dominating them)

With a supportive leader, employees are provided more autonomy and encouraged to demonstrate personal initiative and to be individuals within a cohesive group dynamic.

Studies have shown supportive environments can empower and promote positive dependency among team members, despite being open to more potential conflict as a result of open communication and individual expression.

In his study on “Rights and Responsibilities of Dissent: Cooperative Conflict,” Dean Tjosvold concludes that:

“…asserting the right to self-expression contributes to establishing a conflict-positive climate in which differences and frustrations can be discussed openly.”

The hard part when managing across cultures is finding that fine line between cooperative conflict and just plain conflict.

Next week, we’ll discuss the hybrid leadership style that combines directive and supportive leadership. Stay tuned.

Understanding Cultural Values: With What “Group” Does Your Culture Identify?

Some cultures most identify with their nationality. Others their church. And still others, their family, tribe, or even workplace.

We’ve discussed collectivism in this blog and the mentality of society over self or group over individual.

But of what “group” are we speaking?

In order to better understand the values and norms of a culture, identifying the group with which a culture most closely identifies is essential.

Let’s take a look at some examples.

Who is Your Group?

  • The Irish culture strongly identifies with religion, the Roman Catholic Church.
  • The former Eastern Bloc identifies with Slavic ideals and the party.
  • The French identify with their country, which they call “la grand nation.”
  • The Japanese identify with their company and workplace.

While these are all generalizations (after all, not everyone falls in line with societal values and norms), these broad strokes do highlight the roots of the cultural baobab.

Group identity is flexible. And this is not to say that other groups in said societies are not important.

Family, after all, is important in nearly every culture, and there are other in-groups – like subcultures and company cultures – to which individuals of any society might feel strong ties.

But when trying to understand a culture as a whole and what makes that culture tick, identifying the group that most often defines or impacts the mechanics of society as a whole is essential.

Collectivist vs. Individualist

Group identity, social responsibility, and interdependence are values emphasized in collectivist cultures.

Individuality, self-fulfillment, and independence are those emphasized in individualist cultures.

One wants to fit in.

The other strives to stand out.

One sees conformity as negative.

The other sees singularity as deviant.

As one of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, the scale between collectivist and individualist cultures is just that – a scale. No culture is at the polar extreme, one way or the other.

There are elements of collectivism and individualism in every culture.

And sometimes, these elements are surprising.

We’ll talk about that more next week.