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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.