INDIVIDUALISM VS COLLECTIVISM: DOES IT LEAD TO TEAM

SUCCESS OR FAILURE?

Since times immemorial, man has been working in teams. Be it at home, or at the workplace,
man has always been a part of one dynamic team or the other. Research tells us that the greater
the team member collectivism, greater is the performance of the team. But there can also be
many instances of teams where individuals have a defined role that they are to play in a team.
Their ends are specified, but not means. Collectivism, is selected as a better option since it brings
in the concept of heterogeneity. In heterogeneity, there is a colorful mix of ideas, views etc. from
different people on any given topic. It helps team members choose the best, viable option, and
come to a consensus on any given issue. This conclusion is reached after stating all the facts and
views.

Team performance is a collective success and at the same time failure is also accepted by the
entire team. A generally accepted fact is that it is the leader who takes the blame for the poor
performance of a team. We see how individualism vs collectivism affects teams. This paper
focuses on the aspects of team performance, and how to increase team performance. It also
defines training, and why it is required in present day team. Lastly, we talk about how stating
ends and means affect team performance.

Factors that influence team performance (Wagner et al, 2011)

Individual level difference

At the level of an individual, one tries to achieve only what interests him, rather than the
collective objective. Collectivism, on the other hand, is where individuals think of
themselves as part of a larger group, and they subdue their personal interests for the team
interests.
Level of understanding
There should be a high level of understanding and acceptance of team member views and
ideas. Conveying ideas from a heterogeneous team can be extremely useful since on one
topic, many viewpoints can be stated. But if there is no understanding at the base level, it
will affect the team performance.
Confidence
Having the will to do more and achieving goals is confidence. In a team, confidence rubs
off on others, and this will lead to increased performance. But, over confidence can creep
up. So even if one has the best members on their team, overconfidence can lead to failure
in team performance.

The concept of Guiding theory (Earley, 1989; Triandis, 1995; Wagner & Moch,1986)

Guiding theory suggests that the main concern of an individual is related to his personal wellbeing and is associated with a focus on personal pursuits, and therefore, he will be more
motivated in performing individualized tasks and also subdues collective interests and concerns.
Conversely, collectivistic concern is related by motivated effort toward shared tasks. It pays less
attention to individualized pursuits and outcomes.
People who are more individualized will perform better on individual tasks compared to team
tasks. But, there are also people who are comfortable both ways, i.e., they perform well
individually or in a group. Research findings are present to substantiate these views.

The art of social loafing:

When we talk about a group or team, social loafing is bound to happen. Social loafing is when a
large group is chosen to perform a task as a whole, but in reality, only about 2-3 members are
actually doing the task at hand, while the others are not helping in any beneficial way. As a
result, this can lead to:

Not meeting the objective on time

Failure of the team as a whole
Callous attitude of the shirkers can lead to arguments among those who actually do the
work

Research studies have proven that those people who are more individualistic tend to be social
loafers compared to those who are putting in a collective effort (Earley, 1989). They are seen as
less cooperative than the collectivism individuals. Individualism hence affects the team
performance on inter- dependent tasks. But in contrast, studies have shown that with team
member collectivism is associated with higher levels of member performance on shared tasks.
(Jackson et al, 2006).
A team will always have both individualistic and collective tasks. But it is very important that if
a team, as a whole wants to move forward, social loafing must be kept at a minimum. This is
done so that true efforts of people are shown and that they are rewarded. Being rewarded helps in
increased motivation, and that in turn leads to a better team performance.
How to increase performance?
Performance can be increased by enhancing team members skills, talents etc. This can be done
by providing training. Training is defined as the action of teaching a person a particular skill or
type of behavior. In organizations, training are usually given in group, in the form of lecture
sessions. This provides a class room experience to all the new employees, and it provides a
learning experience. In manufacturing industries, training is more hands on, so that they
understand the job practically. In some places, if the company has the time and money, they
provide mentors to the new employees so that they are tuned with the work flow. Training is

given because people have different backgrounds and cultures, and training helps them all get
accustomed to one another.
Another way to increase performance is by providing rewards. If a team achieves its target, they
should be rewarded. This increases the motivation of the team and helps them want to achieve
more. If an individuals performance is considered as a stand out performance, he can be given
incentives. This can motivate other team members to do better. In contrast, when a single player
is praised, it can lead to jealousy among team members and that leads to a reduced team
performance. This happens because rather than bringing each other up and helping one another
out, they push them down. Individualistic behavior is seen in such cases. Hence, it is good to
reward people if they have done better, but at the same time, other members should also be
motivated to achieve better. Only then can performance can be truly improved.
Failure in teams is always collective. Even if the fault is of one individual, the entire team takes
the blame. Some might question, is this right ethically? One can argue that if the fault is of one,
only he should be punished for it. In the human body, if even one organ stops working, the
individual can die. On similar lines, even if one person fails to complete the task, the entire team
gets affected, and hence, the fail to perform.
A famous philosopher once said to err is human, to forgive, divine. Rather than punishing a
team, if they are given another chance to improve their performance, they will be more dedicated
and hardworking. That is what any organization wants committed, hardworking and dedicated
individuals who will take the organization to heights.
If a person is to be blamed, then usually a leader is the one who steps up. This is because he is
the one who is responsible for the entire teams performance. He is a role model and a leader.
When a team has performed well, it is because of a collective effort, and the guidance provided
by their leader. But if the performance is low, then the leader takes the blame for this failure. A
leader should convince his team members of their responsibilities, and motivate them to achieve
better. He must help bring out the best in people. At the same time, he must be disciplined. He
should appreciate them when they have done well but correct them when they have gone wrong.
The concept of FMEA
FMEA stands for failure modes and effects Analysis. FMEA is a tool used in processes, and also
for failure mode analysis. FMEA can also be used to analyse the quality of group vs individual
performance (Guerrero, Bradley, 2013). In this research, analysis was done in three groups:

Individuals
Groups
Synthesized efforts of individuals and groups

The results of the experiment showed that groups outperformed individuals, and even the
synthesized groups were on par with groups. FMEA is one of the important tools in Lean Six
Sigma. As the analysis indicated, there was better coordination in the design of products. This
resulted in increasing distribution in product design efforts.

Ends Vs Means
The leader of a team can specify ends and means, either one, or not specify both. Ends Vs means
plays a huge role in the performance of teams. The principle of equifinality states that you can
reach an end through several paths and, therefore, what matters more is reaching the end rather
than the comparative merits and demerits of specific paths. If a person is individualistic, he will
use any means at his disposal to obtain the ends. As a group, if there are no ends nor means
specified, it would lead to anarchy. Hence, it must be properly specified as to what a team should
do so as to increase performance .To understand this further, let us consider all the cases that are
possible:
1) Specifying both ends and means:
If this is done, it gives no space for ones own thought process to flow. Everything is
spoon-fed. Work will be accurate, but there is a wastage of knowledge taking place.
2) Specifying means but not ends:
By not specifying ends, there will be a drastic decrease in the performance. Being half
informed is as good as being not informed at all. Since ends are not specified, there is no
clarity on the purpose of the task at hand.
3) Specifying ends but not means:
This is the best design a team should follow since they have the ends given to them, so
they know what is to be achieved. But by not specifying means, they can use all the
knowledge that they have and think different. They can exceed expectations. Hence this
is the best design to follow to improve team performance.
How does individualism and collectivism picture under these circumstances? As an individual,
one should always explore opportunities that will improve his skills, talents, etc. Therefore, by
not specifying means, it provides an individual just that. But, this can get into the way of the
team, if one looks out only for himself and subdues team priorities for his own. Hence it is
important to know when and where to specify ends and means.

A teams success is a collective effort, and as an entity, the team members work together so as to
achieve their targets and goals. Success is accepted as a collective outcome, since the dedication
of the team members has resulted into success. On the other hand, team players who have
performed well need to be praised so as to boost their morale and also the morale of others.
On the other hand, when talking about failure, it is collective. Blaming one person is unethical,
and it goes against the concept of a real team. Scope of improvement should be provided. This
also boosts morale, since by obtaining another chance, they would want to utilize it to the
maximum and improve upon the issues they faced the last time.
In a team, our individual performances can also be affected. For example, a group of singers can
win a competition if all of them put in their best efforts and also put in a coordinated effort. But

if they are over confident and put in no efforts in practicing, then they are bound to make
mistakes. Being effective is as important as just stating the fact. As a result, even if one member
worked hard, due to the laziness of others he too will be dragged down by this team. In such
cases, if it is not helping him in any way, it is better to leave such a team, and try to join another
one, if allowed. If not, then try to adjust and convince others to work hard.