EMQ » July–September 2022 » Volume 58 Issue 3
Multicultural Teams
North American mission executives and missionaries are often unaware of the extent to which individualism has shaped their social interactions, organizational structures, and gospel presentations. Understanding this is critical for connecting well with the collectivist cultures of most of the rest of the world.
By Sheryl Takagi Silzer
Coming into the twenty-first century, Christian missions experienced a significant change – the center of Christianity moved outside the Western world to the rest of the world. The center of Christianity is no longer white European or Euro-American but has shifted to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The major challenge for North Americans is to recognize the extent to which their individualistic culture creates difficulties in working with the collectivistic rest.
North American mission executives and missionaries are often unaware of the extent to which individualism has shaped their social interactions and their organizational structures. Furthermore, individualism can also affect how the gospel is presented. Missiologist Paul Hiebert warns, “We must distinguish between the gospel and culture. If we do not, we will be in danger of making our culture the message.”[1] To avoid making our culture the gospel, we need to better understand our culture.
To avoid making our culture the gospel, we need to better understand our culture.
When people from different cultures work together, there will automatically be misunderstandings because each culture has different assumptions on which they base their thinking and behavior. Unfortunately, most people are largely unaware of the cultural influences that shape how they go about their lives. Over time, our way of behaving forms habits, and we assume everyone else does things like we do.
When we encounter different ways of doing things, we get surprised, shocked, or even angered. Our response reveals there are underlying beliefs that are different from what we expected.[2] A person’s negative response to different ways of doing things has been referred to as culture bias evident in culture stress or culture shock. Mission agencies often assume that the culture training they give their members is sufficient to address different cultural practices, but they also know that people still fail due to cultural differences.
North American Individualists
The most characteristic feature of North American culture is the focus on the individual and how each person defines him or herself. If you were to ask North Americans how they would describe themselves, they would probably say things like, “I’m good at sports, I like pizza, my favorite color is green, etc.” When they talk, they prefer talking about themselves, their opinions, and their individual achievements.
It is not unusual for two Americans to get into a heated argument due to their differing opinions. This is just an expression of their individualism. As a result, they can easily get upset if their points of view are not readily accepted and do not like to be criticized. They also prefer individual choice. When someone else tells them what to do, they can get angry because they have not been allowed to decide for themselves.
Social relationships for individualists are more fluid than fixed. That is, they easily make friends, but do not expect to have long-term friendships. Although some do have long-term relationships, individualists make their own commitments to others.
Individualists also think independently. Their thinking is analytic and not dependent on the social context. They like to focus on a particular aspect or feature to describe and categorize coming up with their own conclusions about what is truth or what is right or wrong.
Analytic thinking comes from Western scientific inquiry and naturalism. The focus is on the physical world, what can be seen, measured, analyzed, and utilized. The goal is to find the things in life that satisfy and enhance the individual.
Hiebert says that the West has a two-tiered view of reality – science and religion. What has been excluded is the supernatural realm which he calls the “excluded middle” that encompasses the “unseen realm of cosmic realities (spiritual beings), cosmic forces (fate, karma), local spirit beings (ancestors, ghosts, demons, evil spirits), the use of magic, mediums, and astrology.”[3] This is a major aspect of individualism that creates barriers with people from the rest of the world.
The Rest of the World – Collectivists
The most characteristic feature of collectivist cultures is the focus on the group or collective. If you ask how they would define themselves, they may refer to family relationships (mother, father, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, etc.), their family name, or where they came from.
Harry Triandis, a well-known cross-cultural psychologist, explains how collectivist cultures differ from individualist cultures. Triandis says:
People in collectivist cultures, compared to individualist cultures, are likely to define themselves as aspects of groups, to give priority to in-group goals, to focus on the context rather than the content in making attributions and communicating, to pay less attention to internal than external processes as determinants of social behavior, to define most relationships to in-group as communal, to make more situational attributions, and tend to be more self-effacing.[4]
A primary characteristic of the Rest is their group or family-orientation that focuses on the harmony of family relationships that includes family honor and family achievements. They value both positive and negative emotions to achieve interpersonal goals and avoid conflict.
Collectivistsview life as incomplete without others, making social interactions very important. Interactions are not a one-way street but are reciprocal as well as on-going. In collectivist cultures, when someone does something for you, they expect you to do something for them in the future. Reciprocation doesn’t have to be the same thing, but it can be another form of help from someone in your network of relationships. These on-going exchanges are a normal part of life that builds and maintains relationships. Belonging to the family or group also means that each family member takes responsibility for the others.
Collectivists view life as incomplete without others, making social interactions very important.
The importance of relationships and on-going social interactions for members of collectivist cultures includes identifying as a part of others or not being able to perceive themselves as just an individual. Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans, for example, may say, “My family thinks I’m kind.” If collectivists use singular pronouns, “I, me, or my,” their group thinks they are making themselves stand out from the group rather than showing loyalty to the group. Collectivists prefer to speak on behalf of their group.
Social boundaries amongst collectivists are distinct and clear. Each group knows who belongs to their group and who doesn’t. A group or family is maintained by established standards of behavior that reinforce the group’s boundaries. The strength of the group limits the same interactions with those outside of the group.
Collective thinking is more holistic including the spiritual as well as the physical realm and is dependent on the social context and the relationships involved. Their thinking processes have the goal of maintaining relationships rather than establishing truth.
Collective cultures view life as basically spiritual and connected; life includes humans, creation, and the supernatural. Collectivists view the physical body as integrated with the spiritual and not separate. The basic spiritual nature of collectivists affects every area of life. Human social interactions are not limited to only the living. They extend to the realm of the deceased and can also include non-human elements. Sylvie Poirier notes:
Non-humans refer to ancestors, deceased relatives, and spirits of various kinds, as well as to places, animals, plants, rocks, winds, water, meteorological phenomena and any other beings, entities or objects that are bestowed with agency – that is, consciousness and intentionality.[5]
The integration of human and non-human elements also means that these elements are regarded as parts of individuals. Their spiritual nature is shared and is part of their social interactions. That is, when a person helps another, they are not only sharing physically, but also sharing spiritually. In a sense they are sharing part of their spiritual selves with the other person’s spirit.[6]
Barriers Caused by Individualism
The major difference between individualism and collectivism is how a person is defined. Individualists define the person not by their social context or relationships but by their uniqueness. Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, do not regard a person just as a unique physical being but as part of a social and spiritual group whose experiences shape them into real people. People are identified by their social context which includes family members that have already passed on.
North American individualism is reproduced in how we relate to one another, what we say, how we say it, and the expectations we have for relationships. Additionally, individualism shapes how our organizations function. Organizations with individualistic cultures can experience challenges when working with collectivist cultures.
North American Missions Structures Perpetuate Individualism
In their research of organizational culture, Hofstede et al. found several cultural dimensions that impact workers’ ability to work well. Their primary dimension was individualism and collectivism. Their research showed how this dichotomy was reflected in family home life as well as in how their organizations are structured and how they function.[7]
Even though multinational corporations work in many different countries, their organizational structures tend to reflect the culture of their country of origin. Many of the methods of control (finances, human resource management, employee selection, home leaves, etc.) mirror the organization’s country of origin.[8] Because North American mission agencies are based in the United States and Canada, their organizational structures reinforce individualism. The focus is on the individual – their position, role, skills, knowledge, finances, daily activities, etc.[9]
In a typical individualist work culture, the focus is on work to be done. Work and social life are kept separate. Each person is responsible for their own work and paid accordingly. Individuals are normally not responsible for their fellow workers, even for their adult family members. However, everyone generally has the right to decide which responsibilities they want to have within their assigned position.
The flow of the work is based on the budget and short-term goals are prioritized. There are numerous policies that guide decision-making, but the goal is typically to produce a product that increases returns to make a profit or provide a service. Each aspect of work is calculated in terms of time blocks and a person’s salary is based on their production. Exceeding the set standard may lead to an increase in one’s salary or a bonus; not meeting that standard might have negative consequences, such as losing one’s job.
For many North American mission agencies, each missionary secures their own financial support. Out of their support, members give a percentage of their income to maintain the mission’s organizational structure. Each missionary is expected to raise a certain amount of support calculated to cover their basic expenses.
They are not expected to share if they receive more than the stipulated quota. If they want to share some of their support, it is their individual decision. How much they share and when they share is their individual decision. If a missionary has a particular need, it is up to the individual to ask for help; others are not obligated to help but can offer help voluntarily.
For North American missionaries, the challenge is to recognize how their individualism shapes how they do things in their everyday life and how the way they do things contributes to conflicts with collectivists.
The Rest Functions in Collectivism
Individualistic missionaries generally work in collectivist countries (and work with collectivists) where the family is in focus and loyalty among family relationships is more important than skills, knowledge, and roles. In contrast to individualistic organizations, collectivistic organizations view members as part of a family that takes responsibility for every aspect of their lives in and out of the workplace. When a person needs help, other members recognize the need and come to their aid. When a person receives help, they expect to reciprocate in the future. In this way members develop social responsibility to care for one another.
Collectivists say what their group thinks rather than having their own opinions. They prefer doing what everyone else is doing rather than being by themselves. They are also careful of what they say so that they do not offend others. They are very good at sensing what the other person is feeling.
Typically, in collectivist cultures family and church groups support their missionaries and funds are collected, pooled, and distributed by the leaders of the organization. Although the goal of collectivist organizations is to spread the gospel, they also focus on fostering loyalty in relationships that lead to more family-like relations. Members are expected to help each other in any way possible, both inside as well as outside the workplace. The person who receives help is expected to reciprocate at a future time. Collectivist companies expect reciprocity from their workers that develops a sense of loyalty to the company as well as to co-workers.
In Japan, for example, higher-level management often works alongside the workers to develop a greater sense of the whole. In Korean business when one person does something wrong, others in the office are also punished and not just the person who did something wrong.[10] At the same time, with the focus on relationships, it is more likely that a person who doesn’t perform well will be demoted rather than being fired. Other workers will put social pressure on an individual who doesn’t perform well because it makes the whole group look bad. Collectivist countries may also have strict rules about severance pay in order to maintain relationships.[11]
Cultural Views Can Distort the Gospel Message
When individualists understand themselves, they can more easily understand collectivists. Together the two groups can examine whether their theological ideas are influenced by culture and whether they cultural views distort the gospel message.
Mark Noll lists theological challenges for North Americans to consider in their global mission work.[12] He mentions how the individual focus has interpreted Bible doctrines (salvation and concept of the soul) in terms of the individual rather than the collective. Challenges arising from the cultural perspective of the individual as a primarily physical being include how to deal with the realm of the supernatural, whether salvation is individual or more group-focused, and the biblical norm for how to read and interpret the Bible.
Regarding Collectivistic cultures, Jenkins notes:
“… the Bible has found a congenial home among communities who identify with the social and economic realities it portrays, no less than the political environments in which Christians find themselves. For the growing churches of the global South, the Bible speaks to everyday, real-world issues of poverty and debt, famine and urban crises, racial and gender oppression, state brutality and persecution.”[13]
The way the Bible speaks to people includes their interpretation of the Bible as well as how it addresses issues in their everyday lives and shapes their interpretation of biblical truths.
Rethinking Individualism
With the increased growth in global Christianity outside of the Western world, North American missions need to rethink how individualism keeps them from effectively joining with global Christians in spreading the gospel message. They also must recognize how individualism hinders communicating the gospel message to collectivists. North Americans working alongside global Christians need to have an openness to recognize how their own view of life, the gospel message, and their interpretation of the Bible may come from their own individualist perspective.
One of the first things North American mission agencies need to consider is the extent to which their organizational practices and policies reflect individualist characteristics (focus on the individual rather than the group) that create barriers in working with collectivists. Some North American organizations, such as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, have already made changes to be more welcoming to collectivists who have joined their organization.[14]
Secondly, mission agencies must recognize the extent to which materialism and the consumer society influence their organizational practices and policies. Some questions to consider are: Can this same structure support families the way it supports individuals? Do organizational rules and policies only provide for individual support and individual responsibility for finances, or do they take into consideration support for other areas of members lives?
Thirdly, mission agencies should ask whether North American mission agencies make collectivist members feel welcomed and understood in the organization. Do the individualist members understand and respect the global perspectives of collectivists? Or do individualist members get easily upset at how different collectivists are? If so, it may be necessary for individualist members to first understand their own individualism.
One practical way for individualists to learn about their individualism would be to work through Biblical Multicultural Teams: Applying Biblical Truth to Cultural Differences[15] or similar material. Instead of focusing on their own concerns, individualists can focus on developing deeper relationships and welcoming input from collectivist members. They can also seek to learn more about the collective cultures, how they define the person and how their history has shaped their perspective.
Fourthly, North American missions can learn more about the realm of the supernatural (Herbiert’s “excluded middle”) from collectivists. They ask God to open their minds to the realities of the spiritual realm as well as asking God to help them understand what they don’t understand.
Conclusion
Individualism is an inherent part of the culture of North American mission organizations. Recognizing this reality can help these organizations address barriers that prevent individualists from working well with collectivists. Taking intentional steps to overcome these challenges better prepares them to join with global Christian mission endeavors in spreading the gospel message and promoting the kingdom of God.
Sheryl Takagi Silzer (sheryl_silzer@wycliffe.org) is a third generation Japanese American who served 50 years with Wycliffe Bible Translators as a Bible translator, anthropologist, and multicultural consultant in Colombia, South America, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia. She taught Asian culture at Talbot School of Theology and conducts Cultural Self Discovery workshops for multicultural teams. She is the author of Biblical Multicultural Teams: Applying Biblical Truth to Cultural Differences, and co-author of Tapestry of Grace: Untangling the Cultural Complexities of Asian Life and Ministry.
NOTES
[1] Paul G. Hiebert, “Cultural Differences and Communication of the Gospel,” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, 3rd ed. (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2009), 373–83.
[2] One’s emotion response to cultural differences is called their Culture based Judging System (CbJS). See Sheryl Takagi Silzer, Biblical Multicultural Teams: Applying Biblical Truth to Cultural Differences (Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University Press, 2011), for how to discover and address one’s CbJS in multicultural teams.
[3] Paul G. Hiebert, Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 1999), 416–18.
[4] Harry C. Triandis, “Individualism-Collectivism and Personality,” in Journal of Personality 69, no. 6 (2001): 907.
[5] Sylvie Poirier, “Reflections on Indigenous Cosmopolitics – Poetics” in Anthropologica 50, no. 1 (2008a): 76.
[6] Mark S. Mosko, “Unbecoming Individuals: The Particle Character of the Christian Person,” in HAU Journal of Ethnographic Theory 5, no. 1 (2015): 371.
[7] Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2010), 53–86.
[8] Niels G. Noorderhaven and Anne-Wil Harzing, “The ‘Country-of-origin Effect’ in Multinational Corporations: Sources, Mechanisms and Moderating Conditions,” Management International Review 43, no. 2 (2003): 47–66.
[9] Alberto Alesina and Paola Giuliano, “Culture and Institutions,” Journal of Economic Literature 53, no. 4 (2015): 898–944.
[10] Personal communication with an employee whose co-worker did something wrong. All the employees had to sit at their desks until nine o’clock in the evening although they didn’t have to do any work. This fostered group responsibility to encourage each other to do their job.
[11] Personal experience in a Collectivist country.
[12] Mark A. Noll, The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects Global Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009), 33–36.
[13] Phillip Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 5.
[14] Personal communication with an InterVarsity member.
[15] Silzer, Biblical.
EMQ, Volume 58, Issue 3. Copyright © 2022 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
