Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparative study of five cultures
Subodh P. Kulkarni1, Tim Hudson2, Nagarajan Ramamoorthy3, Angel Marchev4, Petia Georgieva-Kondakova5, Vladimir Gorskov6 Associate Professor of Management, Dr. School of Business Howard University 2600 Sixth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20059, United States of America E-mail:
[email protected]; Tel.: + 1 (202) 806 1539
1
Professor and President, Dr. University of Houston-Victoria 14000 University Boulevard Sugar Land, TX 77479, United States of America E-mail:
[email protected]; Tel.: + 1 (361) 570 4848
2
Professor of Management, Dr. University of Houston-Victoria 14000 University Boulevard Sugar Land, TX 77479, United States of America E-mail:
[email protected]; Tel.: + 1 (281) 275 8810
3
Assistant Professor of Management University of National and World Economy Studentski Grad “Hr. Botev” 1700 Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail:
[email protected]; Tel.: + 359 88 844 4062
4
Doctoral Student University of National and World Economy Studentski Grad “Hr. Botev” 1700 Sofia, Bulgaria E-mail:
[email protected]; Tel.: + 359 88 844 4062
5
Manager, Information Services (Israel) Process, Power & Marine Intergraph Corporation 10 Tamari ave Kiryat Motzkin, 26123 Israel E-mail:
[email protected]; Tel.: + 972 (4) 877 9191; + 972 (4) 877 9319
6
Received 11 May 2010; accepted 27 May 2010 doi:10.5200/1822-9530.2010.03
Current Issues of Business and Law, 2010, Vol. 5 ISSN 1822-9530
93
Su b odh P. Ku l ka rn i , Ti m Hu d s on , Nag arajan R amamo orthy, A n g e l M a rc h ev, P et ia Ge org i eva - Kon dakova, Vl adimir G orskov
Abstract
The present study examined cultural differences on seven dimensions of individualism – collectivism orientations in Bulgaria, India, Ireland, Israel and the United States. These cultures did not differ on the individualism – collectivism dimensions of emphasis on individual welfare and self-reliance. Differences exist on the dimensions of competitiveness, solitary work preference, supremacy of individual interests and supremacy of individual goals, and lack of sacrifice for the group. Results showed that Irish and American cultures were somewhat similar and Indian and Bulgarian cultures were somewhat similar with Israelis exhibiting higher individualistic tendencies. Therefore, multi-national organizations may find it difficult to transplant their home country managerial practices (e.g., reward systems, performance appraisal systems, and team-based job design) in a foreign country subsidiary having a different cultural orientation. Results also indicated that similarities exist suggesting that cultural values may be converging to some extent due to globalization. Keywords: collectivism, convergence, culture, divergence, management practices, individualism.
Individualizmo-kolektyvizmo dimensijos: penkių kultūrų lyginamoji analizė Anotacija
Straipsnis nagrinėja kultūrinius skirtumus Bulgarijoje, Indijoje, Izraelyje, Airijoje ir Jungtinėse Amerikos Valstijose septynių individualizmo-kolektyvizmo dimensijų atžvilgiu. Individualios gerovės ir pasitikėjimo savo jėgomis atžvilgiu didesnių kultūrinių skirtumų nepastebėta. Skirtumai išryškėja nagrinėjant tokias individualizmo-kolektyvizmo dimensijas kaip konkurencingumas, pirmenybės teikimas individualiam darbui, individualiems interesams ir tikslams, pasiaukojimo grupei stoka. Rezultatai parodė, kad Airijos ir Amerikos kultūros buvo iš dalies panašios, o Indijos ir Bulgarijos kultūros buvo iš dalies panašios į Izraelio, nes turėjo stipresnio individualizmo tendencijas. Taigi transnacionalinės bendrovės gali susidurti su sunkumais, siekdamos perkelti nacionalinę vadybos praktiką (pvz., atlyginimo, darbo rezultatų apskaitos sistemas, komandinio darbo parengimą) į filialą užsienio šalyje su skirtinga kultūrine orientacija. Rezultatai parodė, kad yra panašumų, be to, galima teigti, kad kultūrinės vertybės tam tikru mastu supanašėja dėl globalizacijos įtakos. Reikšminiai žodžiai: kolektyvizmas, konvergencija, kultūra, divergencija, vadybos praktika, individualizmas.
Introduction There has been an extensive body of cross-cultural research that is grounded in Hofstede’s (1980) typology of international culture (e.g., see Kirkman, Lowe and Gibson, 2006 for a review). Out of the cultural dimensions identified by 94
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos, 2010, t. 5
Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparative study of five cultures
Hofstede, individualism-collectivism (IC) appears prominently in the literature perhaps because of its significant influence on social behavior (e.g., Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995). Individualism orientation refers to an emphasis on individual goals, individual rights, autonomy, self-reliance, achievement orientation, and competitiveness. Collectivism, on the other hand, refers to an emphasis on collective goals, collective rights, interdependence, affiliation with the larger collective, cooperation, and harmony. Notwithstanding the plethora of literature on individualism-collectivism, there are a number of unaddressed issues in the current literature. First, the majority of studies have treated IC as a bipolar, unidimensional construct. However, some researchers have suggested that it may be a multidimensional construct (e.g., Triandis, 1995; Wagner, 1995). Therefore, a simple, dichotomous view of the construct can mask finer differences across international cultures. Second, there have been some inconsistencies in the research findings perhaps because of inadequate attention to the various dimensions of IC in the early literature. For example, the Indian culture has been traditionally characterized as collectivistic (e.g., Hofstede, 1980) but another set of studies shows it to be more individualistic (e.g., Ramamoorthy, Kulkarni, Gupta & Flood, 2007). Third, the relative differences among the IC dimensions across different cultures should be of interest to management practices in multinational companies. However, there are very few guidelines for practitioners in this area. Our study attempts to fill these voids by exploring the differences in IC dimensions across five countries: Bulgaria, India, Ireland, Israel, and the United States. A comparison of the above cultures should be interesting for a variety of reasons in addition to the fact that each country has some similarities and differences with the other countries included in this study. Most of the cultural research in the past has involved the United States as the norm for comparison. Therefore, it serves as a benchmark for cross cultural comparisons. The Indian and Irish economies have experienced rapid growth in recent years partly because of the growth in outsourcing practices and foreign direct investment. Bulgaria had been dominated by communist ideologies in the past but it has liberalized its economy towards free market from the early 1990s (Onay, 2007). In addition, Hofstede (1980) had not included any East European country in his original study. Finally, Israel’s social structure, legal system, and managerial practices are a unique blend of community oriented practices, and those inherited from the past British presence (Shimoni & Bergmann, 2006). Factors, such as iconography, and the presence of a common threat may have contributed to the cultural identity of all countries in the sample. Thus, a comparison of Current Issues of Business and Law, 2010, Vol. 5
95
Su b odh P. Ku l ka rn i , Ti m Hu d s on , Nag arajan R amamo orthy, A n g e l M a rc h ev, P et ia Ge org i eva - Kon dakova, Vl adimir G orskov
these five countries should shed some light on the similarities and differences in their cultural values, and the consequent impact on managerial practices. While we are not proposing any specific hypotheses here, we expect Ireland and the USA to be more individualistic, and Bulgaria, India and Israel to be relatively more collectivistic cultures. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we briefly outline the literature on IC and cultures in the aforementioned countries. Second, we describe the methodology for data collection and analysis. Finally, we discuss the results and conclusions.
1. Review of the literature 1.1. Dimensions of Individualism-Collectivism (IC) Although Hofstede’s (1980) typology of international culture describes IC as a bipolar construct, some researchers have departed from this description. For example, Traindis (1995) has described four attributes of IC. First, the conception of the self refers to individualists viewing themselves as independent of the group that they are a part of, and collectivists viewing themselves in terms of their interrelationships within the social structure of the collective or the group. Second, the goal relationships pertain to individualists placing their own goals over group goals, and collectivists doing the opposite. Third, the relative importance of attitudes and norms refers to the fact that individualist behaviors are driven by their own personal attitudes and norms, whereas collectivists are driven by social norms and duties. Finally, the emphasis on relationships underscores the fact that individualists are more driven toward accomplishing a task, as opposed to collectivists that are geared more toward harmonious relationships. Ramamoorthy and Carroll (1998) built upon the studies by Triandis (1995) and Wagner (1995), among others to develop the IC dimensions. The five dimensions reported in their study refer to competitiveness, value attached to working alone, beliefs about the subordination of individual interests to group’s interests, and beliefs about the detrimental effects of pursuit of personal goals on group goals. In the present study, we examine cultural differences using these IC dimensions.
96
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos, 2010, t. 5
Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparative study of five cultures
1.2. IC Differences across Countries The American culture has been considered highly individualistic. In Hofstede’s study, the United States had a score of 91 out of 100 (ranked 1) on the individualism scale. This may perhaps be attributable to the Americans’ tendency to be driven by a strong work ethic. The Americans also tend to highlight individual achievement as well as a strong individual goal orientation. Individual rights and liberties have been deeply embedded in the American society over a period of time. The democratic laws and property rights also have encouraged individualism in the United States. However, some recent studies have shown that the American culture is becoming more collectivistic (e.g., Parker, Haytko & Hermans, 2009). This may be because of an increased influx of immigrants with collectivistic norms, attitudes, and behaviors. In Hofstede’s (1980) study, Ireland had a score of 70 out of 100, and it ranked in the twelfth place on individualism. The Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, and individual rights and freedoms is deeply rooted in Ireland. However, the Irish culture also values relationships and networking with people. Several recent studies have found Ireland to be somewhat more collectivistic than previously thought (e.g., Ramamoorthy, Gupta, Sardessai & Flood, 2005; Ramamoorthy et al., 2007). The Indian culture has been traditionally considered collectivistic. In fact, it ranked 21st on the individualism scale with a score of 48 out of 100 in Hofstede’s (1980) study. Perhaps the roots of collectivism stem in part from the Indian culture’s emphasis on family, sense of kinship, and community. However, some studies have recently reported that Indians were more individualistic on the competitiveness dimension but more collectivist on preference for group work and supremacy of group goals than the Irish and Americans (Ramamoorthy et al., 2005, 2007). The pattern of these results seems to support the contention of Sinha (Sinha et al., 2001) that in the Indian society individualistic and collectivistic orientations may coexist. In Hofstede’s (1980) study, Israel ranked 19 (a score of 54 out of 100) on individualism suggesting that Israeli culture is moderately collectivistic. For instance, Early (1993) states that Israeli society has emphasized social interests, collective action, and shared responsibility. The kibbutz movement has promoted equality, contribution to society and group welfare, and concern for interpersonal relationships. The Israeli labor movement, Histadrut, has institutionalized collectivistic values and emphasized social relationships. However, Israel has also adopted several western business practices perhaps inherited from the British presence in the past (Shimoni & Bergmann, 2006). Current Issues of Business and Law, 2010, Vol. 5
97
Su b odh P. Ku l ka rn i , Ti m Hu d s on , Nag arajan R amamo orthy, A n g e l M a rc h ev, P et ia Ge org i eva - Kon dakova, Vl adimir G orskov
Hofstede (1980) did not include Bulgaria in his study. However, prior studies indicate that Bulgarian culture is more collectivistic than Western Europe or other Western cultures. One study showed that for Bulgarian students, individualism has an anti-normative connotation (Greganov et al., 1996) that seems to emerge from the monarchical and totalitarian systems that they had experienced in the past. However, Bulgaria liberalized its economy in the 1990s. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how the Western culture has influenced the Bulgarian business practices recently. Thus, in our study, we expect the USA and Ireland to be more individualistic than Bulgaria, India and Israel. 2. Method We collected data from the respondents from five countries, using a survey. The sample size consisted of 219 (India), 75 (the USA), 51 (Israel), 94 (Ireland) and 148 (Bulgaria). We administered the surveys in English in India, Ireland, the USA and Israel. In Bulgaria, the survey was translated into Bulgarian, and back translated into English, using individuals knowledgeable in both languages to assure equivalence of the survey items. In addition to gathering data on the IC measures, we also gathered data on the respondents’ age, full time work experience, years of experience with the current employer, and the number of employees supervised. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that the Indian sample tended to be significantly younger in age, and the respondents had lesser full-time work experience and experience with their current employers. There were no significant differences between the samples on the number of employees supervised. For the Irish sample, years of full-time experience was accidentally left out of the survey instrument and hence, data were not available. Table 1 presents the results of the one-way ANOVA and Table 2 presents the results of the post-hoc analysis using Scheffe’s method for pair-wise comparison on demographics. We measured individualism-collectivism using twenty-seven items that capture several IC dimensions. The survey questionnaires were drawn from previous research on this subject (Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002; 2004; Triandis, 1995; Wagner, 1995). These twenty-seven items were subjected to factor analysis with principal factor extraction with varimax rotation and this method resulted in seven factors. The seven factors were: emphasis on individual welfare, lack of sacrifice for group, competitiveness, supremacy of 98
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos, 2010, t. 5
Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparative study of five cultures
individual interest, supremacy of individual goals, solitary work preference, and self-reliance. All of the seven dimensions exhibited internal consistency reliabilities in excess of 0.70. We coded data in such a way that a higher score indicated a higher level of individualism and a lower score indicated a higher level of collectivism. Table 1. Results of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on demographics
Variable Age
Years of Employment with the Firm
Years of Full Time Work Experience
Number of Employees Supervised
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
Mean Square
F
Sig. .000
Between Groups
37.024
4
9.256
14.252
Within Groups
372.773
574
.649
Total
409.796
578
Between Groups
2873.007
4
718.252
31.126
Within Groups
12137.776
526
23.076
Total
15010.783
530
Between Groups
3184.912
3
1061.637
25.930
Within Groups
19201.797
469
40.942
Total
22386.709
472
Between Groups
14903.230
3
4967.743
.830
.478
Within Groups
2371290.520
396
5988.107
Total
2386193.750
399
.000
.000
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of demographic characteristics across sample
Standard Deviation
Variable
Country
Mean
Age
India
1.87
.378
Ireland
2.28
1.039
Israel
2.76
.778
Bulgaria
2.16
1.032
USA
2.23
.915
Current Issues of Business and Law, 2010, Vol. 5
99
Su b odh P. Ku l ka rn i , Ti m Hu d s on , Nag arajan R amamo orthy, A n g e l M a rc h ev, P et ia Ge org i eva - Kon dakova, Vl adimir G orskov
The end of Table 2 Variable
Country
Mean
Standard Deviation
Years of Employment with the Firm
India
3.39
2.317
11.15
4.098
Israel
5.53
4.591
Bulgaria
5.89
7.677
USA
3.72
3.388
India
5.87
2.588
Ireland
NA
NA
Years of Full Time Work Experience
Number of Employees Supervised
Ireland
Israel
12.47
8.013
Bulgaria
11.07
9.180
USA
9.25
6.821
India
18.06
106.664
Ireland
NA
NA
Israel
2.27
3.240
Bulgaria
7.89
30.102
USA
4.30
8.195
NA: Not available
3. Results In order to identify the IC dimensions on which the five cultures differ, we used one-way ANOVA with “country” as the grouping variable, and the IC dimensions as the dependent variables. Further, we used Scheffe’s post-hoc comparisons to test for pair-wise differences. Table 3 provides the results of the one-way ANOVA. As indicated by the results, there were no statistically significant differences among the samples from these five countries on the emphasis on individual welfare, and self reliance dimensions. That is, across all the samples, the participants indicated that they were self-reliant and tended to emphasize individual welfare over group welfare.
100
Verslo ir teisės aktualijos, 2010, t. 5
Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: a comparative study of five cultures
Table 3. Results of the one-way analysis of variance on individualism collectivism dimension Individualism Dimension Emphasis on Individual Welfare
Lack of Sacrifice for the Group
Competitiveness
Supremacy of Individual Interest
Supremacy of Individual Goals
Solitary Work Preferences
Self Reliance
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Between Groups
1.021
4
.255
1.644
.162
Within Groups
91.596
590
.155
Total
92.617
594
4.374
4
1.094
3.003
.018
Within Groups
214.844
590
.364
Total
219.219
594
Between Groups
60.912
4
15.228
24.658
.000
Within Groups
364.359
590
.618
Total
425.271
594
Between Groups
11.928
4
2.982
13.745
.000
Within Groups
128.000
590
.217
Total
139.928
594
Between Groups
14.663
4
3.666
6.017
.000
Within Groups
359.445
590
.609
Total
374.108
594
Between Groups
14.292
4
3.573
5.992
.000
Within Groups
351.798
590
.596
Total
366.090
594
4.371
4
1.093
1.826
.122
Within Groups
353.138
590
.599
Total
357.509
594
Between Groups
Between Groups
Note: A higher score indicates a higher level of individualism. Current Issues of Business and Law, 2010, Vol. 5
101
Su b odh P. Ku l ka rn i , Ti m Hu d s on , Nag arajan R amamo orthy, A n g e l M a rc h ev, P et ia Ge org i eva - Kon dakova, Vl adimir G orskov
As Table 4 indicates, on the dimension of sacrificing for the group, Bulgarian employees reported greater collectivism than Israelis by their willingness to make sacrifices for the group. On the competitiveness dimension of IC, Indians and Bulgarians exhibited more individualistic tendencies than Irish and Americans; and both Israelis and Bulgarians exhibited greater competitiveness (more individualism) than the Irish. There were no differences on the competitiveness tendencies of Irish and American samples. Table 4. Mean and standard deviations on individualism – collectivism among the Indian, Irish, Israeli, Bulgarian and American sample
Individualism Dimension Emphasis on Individual Welfare
Lack of Sacrifice for Group
Competitiveness
Supremacy of Individual Interest
102
Country
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
India
2.01
0.38
Ireland
1.97
0.08
Israel
2.06
0.48
Bulgaria
1.94
0.46
USA
1.93
0.44
India
2.90
0.63
Ireland
2.88
0.09
Israel
3.08
0.66
Bulgaria
2.77
0.70
USA
2.97
0.63
India
3.49
0.78
Ireland
2.69
0.93
Israel
3.13
0.91
Bulgaria
3.24
0.69
USA
2.73
0.72
India
2.24
0.48
Ireland
2.08
0.48
Israel
2.22
0.42
Bulgaria
2.16
0.47
USA
1.82
0.44
Significant Differences No significant differences.
Israelis more individualistic than Bulgarians (p
