Individualism, Self-sufficiency, Control, the Pursuit of Individual Goals

Traditionally conceptualized as a continuum,company performance can emerge. In the typical
individualism collectivism approach in the managementagency framework shareholders (who collectively act
of remuneration has received considerable attentionas a risk neutral principal) delegate decision making
from sociologists and social psychologists [Hofstedeauthority to managers (the risk averse agent) whose
1983; Hui and Triandis 1986; Wagner and Moch 1986].interests potentially diverge from those of the
Due to the recent shift from "collectivism" toshareholders. This hierarchical structure has an
"individualism" approach in remuneration the philosophyimportant source of market failure namely that the
of reward system in UK has changed. In order toeffort levels of the manager are not directly
analyze those changes which took place let'sobservable by the principal and so cannot be fully
compare "individualism" and "collectivism" approaches incontracted upon. Moreover, the shareholders and the
management.managers' interests potentially diverge since
Individualism refers to a self-orientation, an emphasis onmanagerial effort positively affects the output variable
self-sufficiency and control, the pursuit of individualwhich the shareholder is interested in and hence adds
goals that may or may not be consistent with in-groupto the shareholders' payoff, but is costly to the agent
goals, a willingness to confront members of theand so detracts from the managers' interests.
in-group to which a person belongs, and a cultureThe problem for the principal is to design a contract
where people derive pride from their ownsuch that the expected monitoring costs for the
accomplishments. In an individualistic environment,shareholders are minimized but still induce the
people are motivated by self-interest and achievementexecutive manager to act in the best interests of the
of personal goals. They are hesitant to contribute toshareholders although now at the executive's own
collective action unless their own efforts arevolition (Tirole, 1988, p.78). The contract offered will
recognized, preferring instead to benefit from thedepend on the relative risk attitudes of the parties
efforts of others.involved and will also be subject to a participation and
Collectivism involves the subordination of personalincentive constraint. The participation constraint requires
interests to the goals of the larger work group, anthat the manager receive at least his fall back outside
emphasis on sharing, cooperation, and group harmony,option. The incentive constraint requires that it is in the
a concern with group welfare, and hostility towardagent's interest to undertake the costly action. The
out-group members. Collectivists believe that they arecontract offered typically ties the reward received by
an indispensable part of the group, and will readilythe manager to a variable that the principal is
contribute without concern for advantage being takeninterested in such as company performance or
of them or for whether others are doing their part.shareholder returns (Gibbons and Murphy, 1990, p.38).
They feel personally responsible for the group productThe recent empirical literature has paid much attention
and are oriented towards sharing group rewards.to the notion of relative performance evaluation
Individualism -collectivism is a dimension of culture at(yardstick competition). In essence the output of other
both the societal and organizational levels, althoughfirms provides shareholders with important information
most of the research has focused on societal orabout the effort levels of own firm managers. Strong
national culture. Thus, Hofstede [1980] has shown thatand Waterson (1987) further entertain the idea that
countries such as the United States, Australia, Greatthere is a broader range of company specific signals
Britain, and Canada demonstrate high scores on hiswhich also reveal information about managerial effort
individualism -collectivism index, while Venezuela, China,levels. In the case of yardstick competition this was
Pakistan, Thailand and Mexico score fairly low.achieved by observing the outturn of other firms. All
Although less researched, individualism -collectivisminformation available to shareholders which describes
would also appear to be an important dimension offirm performance potentially reveals underlying effort
organizational culture. Wagner and Moch [1986] arguelevel of managers. Hence, the shareholder might offer
that individualism -collectivism is implicit in organizationalan incentive payment scheme which consists of an
science, but has received scant attention. Triandis et al.alternative signal indicating other observable information
[1985, p.340] discuss the need for corporate educationavailable to shareholders upon which the contract may
programs directed at employees who bring a particularbe conditioned. This scheme includes indicators of
societal orientation, say individualistic, to an organizationyardstick competition, and also firm specific
whose values are more collectivistic.characteristics. Indeed this provides an important route
Individualism and collectivism in the management ofby which product market structures, the risk of
remuneration would seem to have both functional andbankruptcy and so on can potentially influence
dysfunctional aspects within an organizational setting.executive effort, and hence performance, by
For instance, individualistic managerial approach mayincreasing the information base for incentive contracts.
foster development of an individual's self-concept andAs well as providing information to shareholders signals
self-confidence. There is also likely to be a greatermay also influence managers outside employment
sense of personal responsibility for performanceopportunities. Fama (1980) argues that explicit
outcomes, while interpersonal competition mayincentives contracts may be redundant since
generate a steady stream of ideas for innovativemanagers are disciplined through the managerial labour
change. However, there is also likely to be anmarket. That is, superior performers are suitably
emphasis on personal gain, selfishness, andrewarded with high wage offers whereas inferior
expediency. Further, high levels of personal stress areperformers receive low offers. Holmstrom (1982)
a likely by-product of this type of environment, andaugmented this theoretical notion arguing that whilst the
interpersonal conflict may be encouraged.disciplining effect of the managerial labour market is
Collectivism managerial approach in compensationnot insubstantial it cannot be regarded as a pure
offers the advantage of more harmonious relationshipssubstitute for efficient contracts (42). In the absence of
among individuals. In this type of management, greatercontracts he shows that executive effort falls as the
synergies may occur from the combined efforts ofretirement period approaches. The discipline in the
people with diverse skills, while individuals may enjoy amanagerial labour market assumes that manager
network of social support. Alternatively, there is likely toimprove their outside options by effort, congruent with
be a loss of one's self to the group or organizationalmaximising shareholder wealth (Gibbons and Murphy,
persona, and a greater level of emotional dependence1992, p.469). However, it might be possible for outside
on the organization. Individuals may have a greateroptions to be related to other factors not necessarily
tendency to "free ride" on the efforts of others, whilecongruent with the interests of shareholders.
outcomes may represent compromises among theThus, as well as corporate performance acting as a
differing interests participating in a task. What remainssignal for managerial effort there are also other
unclear are the implications of an emphasis on theimportant corporate specific information available to
individual versus the group or collective whenshareholders (signals) which are likely to be taken into
attempting to foster high performance of employees inconsideration in pay setting. Indeed, signals emanating
an organizational setting.from product market, debt holding, acquisitive behaviour
Individualism -collectivism would seem to be one of theand union presence all potentially reveal information
more salient dimensions of culture insofar asabout the extent to which corporate performance is
management of remuneration is concerned. Indue to managerial effort. In addition, these company
Hofstede's [1980] global study of national cultures, hespecific signals may reveal information about
demonstrated a relationship between an emphasis onmanagers outside career options which will also be
individualism and a country's level of economicreflected in managerial remuneration.
development and wealth. Others researchers identifiedAll the types of signal considered are important in
relationships between individualism and the willingnessshaping pay. Relative performance evaluation or the
of employees to violate norms [Verma,1985, p.175] asuse of the performance of other firms is taken into
well as their level of achievement motivation [Hofstedeaccount in determining pay and the coefficient is
1980].consistent with relative sales growth being the
More fundamentally, perhaps the richest researchappropriate measure of performance used. However,
tradition focuses on the psychological traits andthe same result does not appear to apply to
sociological characteristics of the "individualistic"shareholder returns. Reduced union presence results in
employee (e.g., Brockhaus [1982]). Implicit in thishigher pay for top executives but heading a subsidiary
research is the assumption that the career process islowered pay in this period (Gibbons&Murphy, 1990,
a highly individualistic pursuit.p.35). Most surprisingly however, is the result of cash
While individualism may help explain the economicholding and acquisitive behaviour by firms. Lower cash
development in the country, it is less clear howholdings relative to current liabilities raises pay, as does
individual approach in management of remuneration inexpansion through take-overs (Gibbon&Murphy, 1990,
existing firms is affected by this dimension of culture.p.39). Firm growth by take-over which results in the
For example, the corporate culture may be fairlyfirm being cash poor is a strategy for managers which
collectivistic, while coexisting in a relatively individualisticraises pay considerably, despite other evidence which
society. However, the relationship may be moresuggests that such behaviour does not enhance firm
complicated.performance. Indeed such a strategy left firms highly
Wagner and Moch [1986] suggest that overlyvulnerable to the subsequent recession. This may be
individualistic corporate cultures may be inappropriateexplicable if increasing firm size improves managers
for contemporary organizations in which highlyoutside options. Either way this result raises questions
interdependent methods of productions, inventoryabout the degree of effective control of top managers
management, and matrix structures are employed.pay and over decision making concerning who controls
The individual employee is overly motivated byand benefits from take-over decisions.
self-gain, and can be "bought" by the highest bidder;Thus, highly individualistic approach to employee
whereas, the group or collective cannot. Moreover, theremuneration produces strong incentives for high
corporate setting demands certain political skills and anperformance of employees, but will also result in a
ability to work with and through others, which may begamesmanship, zero-sum competition, sequestering of
inconsistent with a strong individualistic orientation.information, and the chaotic pursuit of tangential
Finally, collectives are viewed as more able toprojects having little strategic fit with the organization's
generate a continuous stream of incrementalcompetencies or overall direction [Maidique 1980]. In the
innovations, as opposed to the major breakthroughsabsence of any group or team identification, individuals
that periodically come from individuals.are more likely use organizational resources to satisfy
At the same time, others continue to stress the role ofself-interests [Wagner and Moch 1986]. Further, many
the individual in corporate culture. Peters [1987] placestasks can be left incomplete as individuals are unable
strong emphasis on the need for organizations toto obtain cooperation from those having the expertise
support radical champions within their ranks. Petersand resources necessary for implementation of the
[1987, p.98] argues that achieving innovation in largecompany mission.
firms requires that managers find ways to apply theHowever, in a strongly collectivist environment group
concepts of individual liberty and freedom as theperformance and reward systems can encourage
rewards within the corporate walls. Burgelman and"free-rider" or "social loafing" syndromes on the part of
Sayles [1986, p.156] claim that individualism does notspecific individuals. Further, tasks become
inherently conflict with big business, and that successfulover-segmented, such that individuals lose sight of the
performance of employees is built around thelarger project and concentrate only on their assigned
integration of individualism.duties [Peters, 1987, p.78). Compromise is highly valued,
Shift from "collectivism" to "individualism" has greatlyas is acceptance of group norms and roles. The result
influenced rewards system in UK. The primarycan be mutually acceptable incremental solutions, as
motivation that is used by managers in the system ofopposed to more controversial breakthrough
rewards became individual motivation based on rationalinnovations. In the final analysis, the collective will work
self-seeking behaviour. Certainly, the organisationalto resist significant change, while fostering imitation and
behaviour literature for a long time has argued that theadaptation.
motivational needs of individuals in organisations areTropman and Morningstar [1989, p. 123] explain, "in a
more complex than as represented by neoclassicalfirm where unity of interest is the dominant theme,
utility-maximising theories. Maslow argued thatemphasis on the creating of some diversity,
individuals have a hierarchy of needs, which rangeheterogeneity, and internal organizational friction are
from physiological needs at the lowest level (such asnecessary to get the supply of new ideas required for
food and warmth), through safety needs, love needs,continual achievement." The highest levels of employee
esteem needs, to self-actualisation at the highest levelperformance will occur when a fairly balanced amount
(1964, p.77). Neoclassical economics tends toof consideration is given to the needs of the individual
emphasise low level needs, whereas the concept ofand the collective. This quasi-balance would seem
'high custodians' is more commensurate with esteemconsistent with Waterman's [1987] concept of
and self-actualisation needs important to high income"directed autonomy." Respect for the individual
groups.combined with personal incentives (financial and
According to Maslow perspective, we might expectnon-financial) are necessary to spur employees to tap
attitudes and behaviour of employees to betheir creative potential and develop novel concepts on
concerned with a 'job well done'. Self-interest becomesa continual basis. Moreover, individual autonomy and a
inter-related with a wider group interest. From doing thesense of ownership of innovation encourage the
job well peer group recognition results (Whyte, 1996, p.risk-taking and significant persistence required to
143). The inclusion of esteem, pride or group respect inimplement the goals of the company.
people's utility functions to the system of rewards isRosabeth Kanter, in her book The Changemasters
compatible with Gary Becker's more inclusive notion of[1983], explains (p. 410), "There ate times when
utility maximisation (Mitroff, 1988, p.55). Furthermore,autonomy and individual responsibility, are more
Fama notes how the labour market for managementimportant than participation and team responsibility . . ."
may capitalise performance in managerialAt same time, the complexity of many new product
remuneration producing a direct incentive for managersopportunities, combined with technological constraints,
to satisfy owners independent of the precise form ofthe diversity of markets, governmental restrictions,
the ownership (Fama, 1980, p.289). In its simplest terms,uncontrollable economic developments, and the need
effective management has its own rewards in termsfor partnerships with suppliers and distributors suggest
of salary and promotion prospects.a degree of teamwork and well-coordinated task
Individualistic approach in management of remunerationintegration are vital for the company success. Thus the
stresses financial rewards instead of recognition bysingle-minded employee must be adept at crafting
peers (which is the primary motivation in collectivisticcoalitions and building teams who feel a strong sense
approach). Thus, one of the examples of remunerationof joint involvement and contribution (Kanter, 1983, p.76).
based on individualistic system of rewards is theThe key in establishing rewards for employees is to
system of remuneration established for high levelbalance the need for individual initiative with the spirit of
management and top executives. As the researchcooperation. Individuals are needed to provide the
shows, financial motivation and benefits based onvision, unwavering commitment, and internal
individual approaches to each manager did not onlysalesmanship without which nothing would be
help to enhance performance of managers butaccomplished. The company employees do more than
increase profitability of the whole company.provide functional expertise or perform specific tasks.
The principal agent framework has become a widelyThey modify and adapt the innovation as new and
used theoretical model to explain the remuneration ofunanticipated obstacles arise, all the while being kept on
high level management and chief executives (Main,track and spurred on by the individual champion. And, in
1992, p.156). Such models typically predict that athe final analysis, it is this amorphous group that takes
positive relationship between compensation andownership of, and credit for, the end-product.