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.

Society Over Self: Collectivist Cultural Management

The core group in collectivist cultures is family.

And the definition of family differs across cultures, as we’ve previously discussed.

The West often considers the two-generational core to be “family,” while other cultures include extended relations – or even an entire village – under the umbrella.

Other “groups” in collectivist cultures include in-groups, like the company one works for, or society as a whole.

A group’s success and survival – whether the group is family, the village, the company, or society – ensures individual success and survival.

Because of this, harmony is valued in collectivist cultures, as is interdependence of individual members.

Children are socialized in groups early on in order to become interdependent.

Everyone depends on everyone else, because the group only survives as one.

Being recognized for individual achievement is almost unheard of; rather, collectivists work in tandem and share with group members – both their successes and their failures.

Group Loyalty = Self-Loyalty

In a collectivist culture, group loyalty is self-loyalty.

Think of it this way: society, a company, or a family is like a human body. Each member is a limb or an organ; each member is vital to the body’s function.

So, if one organ fails, the body fails.

If one limb is neglected, then the body isn’t functioning at its most optimal.

It’s with this mentality that collectivist cultures place a higher value on the group than the individual.

An individual’s personal goals and ambitions come second to the group’s overall success and well-being.

To return to our analogy, if a body’s personal goal or ambition was to win an arm-wrestling contest, so it pumped iron every day, focusing only on building up the biceps, but forgot about its legs or its core, then the arms might be able to succeed in meeting their ambition, but the rest of the body would suffer.

This is how collectivist societies view personal goals and ambitions.

Your arm (you, the individual) does not work alone.

A collectivist would sacrifice his own career goals for the sake of the group’s.

Society, First

When society comes first, self comes second.

This is one of the main reasons that in collectivist societies, management differs from individualist cultures.

Last week, we talked about how these differences clash through workplace incentives. “Employee of the Month” is one way in which management in individualist societies incentivize hard work.

But would this work in collectivist cultures? Not so much.

What would then?

We’ll talk about that more next week.

“Employee of the Month”: Self-Realization & Individualist Cultures

What is the “American Dream”?

The Commission on National Goals had the answer for President Eisenhower.

They reported that the primary motivator of American citizens was the possibility of individual self-realization.

What does this mean?

Pull Yourself Up By Your Own Bootstraps

The American Dream doesn’t often include the economic success and overall wellness of one’s neighbor or third cousin.

It’s a dream of one’s own economic success.

In individualist societies – like that of the United States, western Europe, and other Western countries – a person often identifies with themselves above all others and looks to satisfy his own needs before those of the group.

He also sees his path as one of self-determination. “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps,” so to speak.

Self-reliance, personal freedom, and independence are the values glorified by individualist societies.

The individual is the smallest unit of survival.

Employee of the Month

This is why, at an American company, “employee of the month” is a successful incentive for productivity and improved performance in work culture.

The strong individualist culture means that employees will seek any way in which they can stand out from the pack in a positive light.

When your name and photo are posted on a bulletin board of achievement in the company lobby, recognition is your reward, and it fuels individualist motivation.

As a Swiss manager in the US, I appreciated the effectiveness of this reward system. So, I attempted to bring it back to Switzerland with me.

When I implemented “employee of the month” at the Swiss company I was managing, it fell flat. In fact, not only was it not a motivator, the reward system was met with immediate and breathtaking negativity on the staff’s part.

“This is ‘typical American,’” they said, adding that Swiss workplaces traditionally don’t single out individual successes, as they see success as a result of teamwork.

Although “employee of the month” type of recognition is frowned upon by Swiss companies, they are not so collectivist as to dissuade pay-for-performance or achievement-based promotion, also distinctions. The difference is, these are in-group and colleague-approved.

Collectivist Thought

On the other hand, a collectivist culture, which centers around group betterment, rather than individual development and freedom, would not even humor the idea of “employee of the month.”

An international survey asked managers from Egypt, China, Japan, and the US whether they agreed with the following statement:

“When individuals are continuously taking care of their fellow human beings, the quality of life will improve for everyone, even if it obstructs individual freedom and individual development.”

Who agreed?

  • 70% of Egyptian managers
  • 59% of Chinese managers
  • 61% of Japanese managers
  • 31% of US managers

We’ll talk more about that difference in mentality next week.

The “Japanese Miracle” & “Culture’s Consequences”: Cross-Cultural Research Gains Ground

Imagine your country is number one.

Number one in economic growth.

That’s what Japan was experiencing between the end of WWII and the Cold War.

While the country was still behind the United States, it became the world’s second-largest economy after its defeat in WWII.

Termed the “Japanese Miracle,” Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman were so interested in this economic boom that they wrote a book about it.

In Search of Excellence was written in the early ‘80s. It concluded that the Japanese outperformance of the Americans in terms of growth was due to differences in culture.

Culture and cultural studies were finally becoming a focal point to more than only those who studied social sciences. Big corporate CEOs were starting to see cross-cultural research as a tool for success in business.

Culture’s Consequence

In walks Hofstede.

As we discussed last week, Hofstede had discovered differences in culture while analyzing the outcomes of a company-wide survey for IBM.

In doing so, he offered the first scientifically-founded analysis of cultural differences in the workplace.

In 1980, he also published a book, Culture’s Consequences. By the turn of the century, Hofstede’s work had been cited more than 2000 times, with no empirical work as influential in the fields of psychology or culture.

According to Hofstede’s research, nations differed in four cultural dimensions.

The dimensions denoted sets of values, scaled from one extreme to the other. After surveying the populous of various cultures, each nation was valued between these two poles.

One dimension involved “Uncertainty Avoidance” – to what degree a culture’s members are comfortable/uncomfortable in unknown, surprising, or situations that differed from their cultural norm.

This dimension suggests which cultures maintain tradition and fear change and which are open to risk-taking and innovation.

The dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance was discovered when Hofstede looked at the survey’s responses to questions about work-related stress.

An example of a work-related question in the survey:

How often do you feel nervous or tense at work?

Answers ranged from “I never feel this way” to “I always feel this way.”

Another correlating question asked whether one should break company rules if doing so was in the best interest of the company.

Further, employees were asked if they had long-term plans to stay with the company.

The Results

The survey found that some cultures appreciated change, and these were the same cultures that were less affected by stress.

Those cultures that avoided change and were more affected by stress were often also more bound by rituals, laws, bureaucracy, and tradition.

For example, Latin American cultures are layered in procedures and rules and are considered “uncertainty avoiding” cultures.

Next week, we’ll talk about more of the dimensions discovered by Hofstede.

Differences in Values & Norms Between Multi-generational vs. Two-generational Family Structures

The values and norms of traditional societies versus modern ones are vastly different.

As we’ve previously discussed, while it’s unlikely that a business will ever directly negotiate a contract or deal with a remote population, the knowledge that these fundamentally different values and norms exist is important.

Because if there’s one thing I want you to take away from this blog, it’s this: there’s no “correct” or “superior” way of living; there are only different ways.

Just like your own values and norms, others’ serve a purpose. They may serve either a deep ideological purpose or a more practical one, but purpose is there.

Consider the Purpose

As mentioned in a past post, the Western culture’s idea of family structures is evolving; the modern patchwork family is becoming a norm.

Renowned anthropologist, Marvin Harris, wrote:

“In view of the frequent occurrence of modern domestic groups that do not consist of, or contain, an exclusive pair-bonded father and mother, I cannot see why anyone should insist that our ancestors were reared in monogamous nuclear families and that pair-bonding is more natural than other arrangements.”

Opening up our generalized concept of “normal” family structures can help us more thoroughly understand other cultures.

Consider the purpose that creates the values and norms surrounding these structures and what this purpose might indicate about the broader culture.

Two-Generational vs. Extended

Anthropologists identify differences between two-generation families and extended-generation families.

In the West, when politicians spout slogans in defense of “family values,” the family in question is one of two generations.

That is the nuclear family – the mother and father and their children – as well as divorced families, patchwork families, one-parent families, and unmarried parents. Despite the latter’s complexity, they’re also two-generation families.

However, in other cultures, values and norms centered around extended families – or those of at least three generations – are more common.

Extended families include grandparents on both sides, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and any other kin of the husband and wife.

This valuation of extended families is more prevalent in the world than the Western concept of two-generational families.

Societies that value extended families are typically built on collectivist values, while those that value two-generational families are built on individualist values.

Extended family societies ensure broader social cohesion, communities that are interconnected in order to ensure survival, and the value of personally caring for the aging population.

We’ll talk more about the link between how societies define “family” and the cultural values that determine that definition later in this blog.

But for now, know that more often than not:

  • Two-generational societies = individualism
  • Multi-generational societies = collectivism

As you move forward in reading the blog over the next few weeks, consider what purpose your own values and norms serve. Consider how they might be viewed from the outside, looking in. Only then will you be able to look at other cultures through their own cultural lens.

China and the Marriage Buyer’s Market

You might think there are universal norms regarding love and marriage, but that is certainly not the case.

Last week, we discussed Japan and the norm of marrying for economic advantage over love. In neighboring China, this idea is also ingrained.

And parents considering marriage prospects take the matter so seriously that, in Shanghai, Beijing, and other Chinese cities, “Marriage Buyer’s Markets” exist.

People’s Park Marriage Market

In the Marriage Buyer’s Market in Shanghai’s People’s Park, a summary outline of daughters and sons, alike, are presented by their parents on cardboard signs.

Similar to a job fair, other parents in search of proper partners for their children are invited to walk around, perusing the signs, which enumerate the pros of marrying the daughter/son in question and attempting to matchmake the best prospects.

Some selling points you might see on signs:

  • Born in the year of the dog/171cm/12.000 Yuan salary
  • Own apartment/76sqm/188cm

Chinese marriages are still dowry-based, like in India; but unlike India, the dowry is paid not by the bride’s parents, but by the groom’s, and is termed “bride prices.”

As detailed in The Economist:

“Most of China is patrilocal: in theory, at least, a married woman moves into her husband’s home and looks after his parents…The groom’s parents…are expected to pay for the wedding and give money and property to the couple. These bride prices have shot up, bending the country’s society and economy out of shape.”

This makes shopping for the right partner all the more difficult. If the groom’s family is unable to afford the bride prices, then he is not considered a good match. Moreover, with the male-to-female ratio being 105:100 according to a 2017 census, the gender imbalance in China makes the chances of finding a mate even slimmer.

The bride may also have difficulty. In fact, those women of high income and education who haven’t married before the age of 30 are christened with the derogatory term, “leftover women.”

What this all boils down to is that love is not the currency for successful marriages in China; horoscope, property, and income are.

As one Chinese mother summed up the culture’s values and norms regarding marriage:

“First you build your life, and only then also your love.”

Love Happiness vs. Team Happiness

In this way, the West’s focus on love equating a happy life differs from the Chinese focus on economic teamwork equating the same.

The perfect Chinese mate is someone to help you stay afloat financially, raise a family, and succeed mutually in the balancing act of life…and, perhaps most importantly, not be considered “leftover.”

And searching out this perfect mate is not a private concern; it’s a familial affair.

As Wlada Kolosowa, a journalist for the German magazine, Spiegel, sums up:

“In the Western world, love is a matter between two individuals; in China, it is a union between two families.”

Next week, we’ll talk about two-generation families versus extended-generation families. Stay tuned.

Inuits & Alternative Family Structures

What if you lived in a culture where an alternative family structure was the norm?

Last week, we talked about modern family structures in the West.

We noted that the West’s norm of a nuclear family with father + mother + children is evolving.

While such a family is still the norm, same-sex couples can adopt, divorce is more common, leading to patchwork families, and family structures that were once considered “alternative” are becoming more mainstream.

But, as we also noted in last week’s post, alternative family structures aren’t really new or modern at all.

The Exchange

Anthropologist Arthur J. Rubel of the University of Alaska delved into the “alternative” lifestyles of the Inuit and Aleut peoples of Alaska and Greenland.

In 1961, he put forth a summary of his and others’ findings, the field research of which dated back to 1888.

In his published article, he tells about the relations between Komallik Eskimos, who researchers noted would exchange their wives usually for not more than one night at a time.

Moreover, regarding the Eskimos nearer the Bering Strait, he writes:

“It is a common custom for two men living in different villages to agree to become bond-fellows or brothers by adoption. Having made this arrangement, whenever one of the two men goes to the other’s village he is received as the bond brother’s guest and is given the use of his host’s bed with his wife during his stay.”

He further notes that, on St. Lawrence Island, the wife-exchange was considered a special ceremony with the tribe’s religious system incorporated into the exchange.

He writes:

“This ceremony, called the kaezivas, implicated the closest kinsmen and their wives.”

You can take this anthropological study with a grain of salt. Remember, Rubel was looking at it through his own cultural lens, which can often distort things.

Exaggerated Interpretations

When interpreting anthropological studies, it’s important to note that the researcher’s own culture  – with all the values and norms that accompany it – often drives the narrative.

This study, for instance, was proven to be exaggerated. Contrary to what was presented in the published study, the wife-exchange was not a widespread custom. And, although such behaviors did occur, they were often more complex and practical than described.

For example, when a man who lived near the river wanted to hunt game for a season, and another who lived in the woods wanted to fish for salmon, they might exchange places – and wives – because the hunter’s wife would be happier cleaning hides, while the fisherman’s wife would prefer preparing fish.

So, there was often practicality at play with this behavior.

Moreover, recent studies have suggested that these villages were so isolated that, without extra-marital relations, the genetic pool would have died off, thus threatening the population, altogether.

Comparing traditional societies with modern ones is not a fair comparison. After all, modern societies no longer survive off of hunting and gathering.

However, even modern cultures differ in their view of marriage, sex, and family structures, according to their cultural values and norms.

Next week, we’ll travel to Japan and dive into those differences between East and West.

Family, Sex & Love: A Look at Humankind’s Social Fabric

From linguistics to archaeology, anthropology is the study of humankind, past and present, and the origin of all cross cultural studies.

Family, sexuality, and love are topics of much interest to anthropologists.

Each of these themes is at the core of humanity.

We’ll cover them in detail over the upcoming weeks.

Why These Topics Matter to Cross-Cultural Management

If you’re coming to this blog for corporate success across cultures, you might think that family and sexual mores don’t apply here.

However, I’d argue that they do for two reasons:

  1. A culture’s social fabric is woven by family structures. By better understanding family-related values and norms, you’ll integrate much more smoothly into a society than if you have no clue about the important roles that family members play.
  2. Sexual mores often evoke the strongest emotional reactions, as these norms are amongst the earliest socialized norms in a culture and are often enforced by religious and social taboos. Awareness of unfamiliar social mores will help you avoid crossing boundaries and keep you clear and well away from those dratted taboos.

In effect, any information about a culture’s values and norms will fortify understanding and help you view a culture through their own lens. Only when you can see from the culture’s perspective can you truly identify with their mentality and integrate cross-culturally.

Family, Sex & Love in Culture

Of these three topics, family structures is one of the more thoroughly researched of all anthropological studies.

The study, Family: Variations and Changes Across Cultures, explains why:

“In order to study psychological phenomena cross-culturally, it is necessary to understand the different types of family in cultures throughout the world and also how family types are related to cultural features of societies.”

Family structures are the blueprint for societal structures. This is why some knowledge of family values and norms will gain you significant headway when managing across cultures.

Sex is also on the mind of many an anthropologist. Although, according to The Cross-Cultural Study of Human Sexuality, “Anthropology has long had a love-hate relationship [with it].”

This is largely due to the own sexual mores of those anthropologists in question. Across many cultures, the topic is seen as taboo or controversial, so sexuality remains a “rarely studied” topic of human experience.

Moreover, love and romance is mixed in with family and sexuality and has been since the dawn of time.

According to Love Across Cultures:

“Although love needs to be framed within a cultural context, many scholars believe that romantic love is transcultural. Elaine Hatfield and Richard L. Rapson (1996) viewed passionate love as common to virtually all cultures, and indeed, romantic love has been found in most countries of the world.”

Over the next few weeks, we’ll dissect research on all three topics in more detail, taking a look at remote and predominant cultures, alike, to discover both shared and divergent values and norms in these themes.

To Kiss Or Not to Kiss?

A peck on the cheek, locking lips, snogging, necking, playing tonsil hockey.

90 percent of the global population practices some form of kissing or another.

And, yet, cultural values and norms dictate where and when and why and who we kiss.

Last week, we talked about cultural norms and appropriate touching. Today, we’ll discuss one of the most plainly visible cultural behaviors in this realm: kissing.

Greetings

As we mentioned last week, Spanish women often greet with a kiss on both cheeks. Spanish men, however, do not normally greet other men this way. Cross-gender kissing is a greeting strictly reserved for women.

Travel to Eastern Europe, and you’d find there are no restrictions with the cheek kiss; men and women, alike, greet each other as such. A kiss on both cheeks is commensurate with a handshake.

Another cultural greeting comes in the form of the “Eskimo kiss.” This is a kiss that looks like rubbing noses.

The “kiss” is actually a Canadian Inuit tradition called a kunik. However, a kunik is probably not what you think.

Communications Director of the Avataq Cultural Institute in Montreal, Taqralik Partridge, told Esquire:

“Inuit do not touch noses end to end or rub them back and forth against each other. We place our nose over the place we intend to kunik, press our nostrils against the skin, and breathe in, causing the loved one’s skin or hair or any other part to be suctioned against our nose and upper lip.”

The intention with a kunik is to breathe in the smell of your loved one. These norms illustrate the Inuit culture’s values.

Where Kissing is a Crime

Some cultures prohibit kissing in specific circumstances.

For instance, in many parts of the world, PDA is highly taboo. And in some places, kissing in public is not only “frowned upon,” it’s illegal.

You might expect that in cultures with stricter cultural values and norms, like the Middle East or North Africa. But, guess what? Kissing is also illegal (on the books, at least) in some parts of the U.S.

In Hartford, Connecticut, it was made illegal for husbands to kiss their wives on Sundays. And in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a law was put in the books that prohibited strangers from kissing.

And what about unwanted kisses?

Snopes ran an article about English gentleman, Thomas Saverland, who apparently needed to learn that “no means no” the hard way.

In 1837, Saverland forcibly kissed Miss Caroline Newton at a party. Newton wasn’t having it, so she bit off a chunk of his nose.

According to the Bell’s New Weekly Messenger published on April 30, 1837, when Saverland took her to court, the judge was not sympathetic to his case, ruling:

“When a man kisses a woman against her will, she is fully entitled to bite off his nose, if she so pleases.”

These strangely specific instances are obviously regional and are likely not enacted nowadays. But the fact that they ever existed just goes to show how mores can become laws in certain cultures. And it also illustrates how cultural mores can evolve over time.

Sometimes, it takes years and even decades for laws to catch up to changing cultural values. And when values change, norms – like kissing habits – often follow.

Next week, we’ll delve deeper into sexual mores to see how various cultures view the act of locking lips.

Different ≠ Inferior: Dropping the Cross-Cultural Superiority Complex

Your culture calls light blue and dark blue simply “blue.”

Another culture has two different words for it.

Your culture crumples its toilet paper.

Another folds it.

Another uses no toilet paper at all.

Your culture bows.

Another shakes hands.

Another kisses on both cheeks.

Cultures are different. But none are inferior. And none are unnatural either.

Here’s why.

Stranger Danger

One of the most dangerous ideas in the history of man has been that different equates inferior.

Why is this thought dangerous?

Well, for one, if you view your foreign counterpart as inferior, it goes without saying that you consider yourself superior to him/her.

And when you consider yourself superior, you may try to impose your ideology on the other. That’s happened throughout history, time and again.

When you consider another inferior, you may also justify treating them as such. Treating them like animals.

You may enslave them.

You may abuse them.

You may slaughter them.

It’s a sad reality, but this idea of inferiority is the catalyst to such horrors in our world.

Many of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been committed because of the prejudice that one’s own culture is superior to another’s.

But it isn’t.

Be Fascinated * Give Life Meaning

Cultural norms are natural to their own culture. And they are often a beautiful representation of that culture.

Seeing cultural differences in this light – as natural and beautiful to the culture – will make you more adaptable and successful in a multicultural environment. Adopting this view will help you manage differences (some of which may appear to you as cumbersome or even incomprehensible when compared with your own norms and values).

If you are living and working in a foreign culture, your success depends upon identifying cultural differences and accepting them as they are.

Do not view them in the positive or negative. Such shades are counterproductive.

Instead, take the view of John Hooker who said in his book, Working Across Cultures:

“I have neither the wisdom nor the desire to pass judgment. For me every culture is a source of fascination, because it must encompass all of life and give it meaning.”

And, as with most life-encompassing meanings, none are “less than”. They are the heart of a people, a culture, and should be respected as such.

Next week, we’ll talk about how cultural conditioning creates these differences.