Individualism—Collectivism and Incentive System Design as Predictive of Productivity in a Simulated Cellular Manufacturing Environment

Abstract

We respond to recent calls for a more inclusive behavioral as well as structural perspective on today's state-of-the-art manufacturing designs. Specifically, we empirically examine individualism—collectivism's productivity-related consequences for today's agile, cellular manufacturing designs across incentive systems. Findings indicate that, as hypothesized, the alignment of cell members' collectivistic orientation, a cooperative task structure, and equalitarian performance incentives resulted in one of the higher levels of productivity. However, the assumption that productivity will monotonically increase with the alignment of organizational components and worker orientation now appears questionable. While complete misalignment resulted in a productivity deficit averaging 7.6 percent, as long as one of the two major organizational design elements explored in this study (task structure and individual- versus group-based incentives) is aligned with the individualistic or collectivistic orientation of workers, optimal cell productivity is achieved.

The cultural characteristic of individualism/collectivism: A comparative study of implications for investment in operations between emerging Asian and industrialized Western countries

“…Further topics included an investigation into the consequences for productivity of a collectivist mindset when designing cellular manufacturing systems (Papamarcos et al, 2007), the relationship between collectivism and building a learning orientation in Turkish manufacturing firms (Yilmaz, 2005), and the differences in forecasting methods and interpretation based on cultural factors including individualism/collectivism (Wacker and Sprague, 1998). Other studies considered the combination of national culture and management control to influence manufacturing performance (Chow et al, 1991), as well as the historical assessment of growth in Japanese manufacturing capability, which is attributed to specific cultural characteristics including collectivism (Abe and Fitzgerald, 1995).…”

“…Managers that take this view often place a low value on issues such as training and capability building, and a higher value on setting individual objectives and leaving it to the individual to achieve these. Evidence suggests that an engaged, collaborative, team‐building and empowering management style is more likely to yield improved flexibility performance (Kathuria and Partovi, 1999), and that alignment between a collectivist orientation, collaborative task design and group‐based rewards yields best results in a cellular manufacturing environment (Papamarcos et al, 2007). The corollary is that an individualist orientation will make these particular objectives difficult to realize, or indeed limit the capability of the manager to recognize the value of such methods or management styles.…”

Resilience, well-being, and organizational outcomes of Croatian, Thai, and US workers during COVID-19

“…Also, as members of feminine cultures, Croatian and Thai employees tend to prioritize quality of life and well-being of others more than individual needs or achievements (Hofstede Insights, 2020). Perhaps, these group-oriented values helped Croatian and Thai workers sustain their psychological well-being (Brougham & Haar, 2013;Rego & Cunha, 2009) and productivity level (Papamarcos et al, 2007;Tjosvold et al, 2003) in the early days of the pandemic compared to the individual-oriented values commonly present in the U.S. Another intriguing finding is the moderating effect of culture in the relationship between resilience and productivity. The positive effects of resilience on productivity were strongest among Croatian and Thai workers, despite the fact that participants from the three countries in this sample were not different on their average level of personal resilience (F[2, 542.69] = 1.53, p = .218).…”

“…Also, as members of feminine cultures, Croatian and Thai employees tend to prioritize quality of life and well-being of others more than individual needs or achievements (Hofstede Insights., 2020 ). Perhaps, these group-oriented values helped Croatian and Thai workers sustain their psychological well-being (Brougham & Haar, 2013 ; Rego & Cunha, 2009 ) and productivity level (Papamarcos, Latshaw, & Watson, 2007 ; Tjosvold, Law, & Sun, 2003 ) in the early days of the pandemic compared to the individual-oriented values commonly present in the United States. Another intriguing finding is the moderating effect of culture in the relationship between resilience and productivity.…”

“…For example, employees with high horizontal collectivism values were found to be more resilient to workplace incivility, while those with high horizontal individualism values displayed less resilience (Welbourne, Gangadharan, & Sariol, 2015 ). Also, previous research has shown that collectivistic orientations are positively associated with employee well-being (Brougham & Haar, 2013 ; Rego & Cunha, 2009 ), productivity (Papamarcos, Latshaw, & Watson, 2007 ; Tjosvold, Law, & Sun, 2003 ), and satisfaction at work (Hui, Yee, & Eastman, 1995 ). To examine how cultural differences might moderate the effect of employee resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, we strategically selected the United States, Croatia, and Thailand for the following reasons.…”