Individualism-Collectivism as Cultural Chasm: Workplace Stress and Cultural Syndrome

Introduction

The terms individualism and collectivism suggest political ideologies dating back to the early 19^th century (Hatemi et al., 2014). They also have been used as the opposites (in meaning and scale) as nonpareils, that is, evil versus good (Saks, 1992). In the 1960s, individualism was transpired in personality psychology literature; however, no one discussed the collectivist nature. These two terms then appeared in sociology as two opposing cultural and social dimensions as nonpareils (Revers & Brienza, 2018). These dimensions have polarized the social orders so that the collectivist affiliates were inclined to identify themselves as ‘we’ and individualistic members as ‘I’; hence, a chasm began to surface. Accordingly, scholars from various disciplines, including psychology, political science, business and commerce, fine arts, and sociology, started to form definitions relevant to their specific fields.

Other concepts of interest in this chapter are stress and stressors (and subsequently workplace or occupational stress and stressors) as defined by the Hungarian-Canadian endocrinologist, Hans Selye, who borrowed this term from the field of physics. He observed that his patients suffered from a common complaint regardless of their specific medical conditions; they were all under physical stress or strain (1946). Selye argued that stress was an unknown and unclear tension or pressure on the body instigated by anomalies in typical body functions. Furthermore, Selye contended that such stress produces and results in the release of stress hormones. He then referred to this as the General Adaptation Syndrome (1946). Selye extended Charles Darwin’s work concerning physical adaptability and evolution to learn more about the long-term effect of stress on individuals. He proposed three-stage hypotheses to describe how organic systems react to unpleasant provocations. In Stage One (alarm), the organism’s system violently responded to the external risk. Then, various internal biological systems vigorously fought the threat, and, if successful, the organism’s system slowly returned to normal functioning in Stage Two (resistance). Finally, suppose the external danger continues (Stage Three). In Stage Three, the internal resources are hypothesized to be exhausted, and eventually, adverse mental and physical consequences, including mortality, would occur (Cooper et al., 2001). In 1976, Selye expanded his stress model theory to include stress and stressors at work.

Selye molded our awareness and treatment of occupational stress in three significant ways by positioning stress within an evolutionary context. First, relevant to Darwin’s system-environment fit model and the transactional view, occupational stress is recognized as a worker-work environment misfit. Second, as both Darwin and Selye introduced evolutionary adaptation as a reactive procedure, workers experiencing stress are often portrayed as passive sufferers rather than active agents. Third, occupational stress is currently viewed as a person-centered dilemma. Thus, most stress treatments are planned to educate and assist reactive coping as a substitute for proactive adaptation of the workplace framework (Newton et al., 1995).

This chapter explores whether the cultural view of individualism or collectivism (Hofstede, 2011) is a significant element in job-related stress development. In particular, the authors aimed at how workers from different countries with different worldviews (individualism or collectivism) are dissimilar in their approach and assessment concerning work stress and respond to job challenges and pressures, including working hours, assignment, and organizational controls.

The subsequent section will express those disciplines’ different viewpoints concerning defining and operationalizing these constructs. Later, the authors focus on the effects of these different views in terms of cultural nonpareils on individuals, arts, workplace and society, using Chinese and North American cultures as the two seemingly antagonists.