Social Political Behaviors - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

NMaries · **Social Political Behaviors -** 06-30-03

Based on "Individualism, Collectivism, and Opportunism: A Cultural Perspective on Transaction Cost Economics" from Journal of Management, Volume 28, Issue 4, August 2002

Quote:

Going to an older study from the Journal of Management, Individualism, Collectivism, and Opportunism is a cold perspective of business and social groups. It is also very important in understanding external factors. Based on the transaction cost economics paradigm, the writer feels TCE is over-simplified and the authors want to expand these viewpoints. A comparison of United States and Japanese culture is observed in developing their thesis.

Transaction cost economics paradigm assumes opportunism as the reason for deceit amongst people. Deceit is far less of an offense than gross lying, stealing and cheating. Instead, it is compared to white lies and saving-face.

Opportunism greatly effects work standards. I remember working at a place that simply did not know how to fix their products. This problem had been going on for a long time. Even management passed-the-buck to the manufacturer in attempts to avoid costly law suites. Still after having the knowledge, resolve the problem a larger issue of competence had already been developed making it even more difficult to repair the product effectively.

The key terms were ingroups, outgroups and individualists. In this case, the ingroup is the company. The outgroups are all other groups outside the company, such as: the manufacturer, consumers, media, and etceteras. This study seeks to find the extent and primary determinants of opportunistic behavior. Also included, is exploring classical management theory. It states commitment; cooperation and respect for authority are part of human motivation in an organization.

Culture and prior conditioning also play a part in the framework of economics. In comparing the USA to Japanese partnerships, Japan is more likely to sustain the partnerships. The USA will usually break away after a given time. Even USA/Japanese cooperation last longer. A cultural bias in the USA is based on Human Rights. The individuals importance could be a reason why. Individuals are cited as being more honest on average however threatening to groups, as they are not recognized as a part of the ingroup.

This reaches the level of combining personal abilities as part of a group along with the extent of moral obligation to their group to find the differences between and individualist act and a collectivists act. “Cultural differences in self-identity, interest seeking and moral obligation to others have a profound effect on opportunistic propensity.” The relation to self and groups is then looked at with this in mind.

A person within a group a person feels belonging. Collective interest provides a strong bond of mutual obligation, accommodation and co-operation. Weaker moral leads to a presumption of having the collective exploited. Therefore, there is still a breech of obligation to a company, in pursuit of self-interest.

A person when approaching different groups is influenced by stereotypes and obligations to their own group. Opportunistic behavior is then enhanced greatly. In areas of conformity much higher levels of guileful behavior is visible. However, individuals will stay within a group more readily.

When groups are pitted against other, groups happen when two individuals act on part for their group. They like actors exemplifying the collective through social categorization. These individuals have demonstrated their willingness to self-sacrifice for the group. They are also said to have a strong identity within the group. The willingness to hide or distort information is apparent. Essentially, they justify their behavior, because they think it will help the many.

Essentially this all boils down to there are other reasons for the observed behavior between groups, other than opportunism. Personal and social morals and values have a heavy placement on the reasons for why people do what they do. Understanding the purpose and rational of economics. Empirical anomalies within the United States in comparison to Japan make this apparent. Even in class teams function better in Japan than the United States. While trying to reform to the more effective way of doing business, there is an underlying moral interest in trying to change the individualist viewpoint. Individualism has been a strong building point for our culture.

This model of for research could purpose a benevolent source of information for United States companies as it revolves around cross-cultural samples. Many strategic maneuvers will be influenced by the findings. Some levels of impact are in over-generalization about opportunism, understanding tradeoffs when dealing with other groups and the tradeoffs of making over-generalization. It will eventually come down to CEOs of corporation and political leaders though. The individual planning strategic actions will have to way out the strengths and weaknesses of not only opportunism, but also moral conflicts.

To me this is a natural progression the values of TCE would not be under examination if it were completely accurate. The culture and moral values of too many people are undermined but stating the world revolves around money not love. Is it a foolhardy attempt to make a utopian society, probably. While it is trying to gain a more personal understanding, it will more than likely be used as an opportunity to exploit other groups.

Corporate Pig · 07-01-03

The problem with this, I feel is...

It is trying to classify everyone by either Individualism, Collectivism, Or Opportunism.

Can these 3 words describe the unique social, behavioural, emmotional, and political intellect which is present in all of us ?

An example...
Alot of people like to define someone as being a "socialist" because they might support a concept of 'community'.
BUT, a 'socialist' may not be their belief, as they're more leaning towards an idea of 'decentralised' control of a state - which is often refered to as 'Anarchism'.

Of course though,.. all this is only relevant if the individual has decided upon a set of beliefs;
In that, if one supported beliefs stemming from both say Capitalism & Socialism, wouldnt they then simply be 'confused' or 'undecided', and hence; how could a label of "Individualist" or "Collectivist" be applied ?

NMaries · 07-01-03

Mainly it is for the implementing of corporate or political manuevers to accomplish agendas in the best interests of everyone.

You see in a highly motivated group to conform to collectivism, there is usually a reason. One of those reasons is not having the ability to stand on your own or survive without the other.

Lately the USA has been moving toward a more collectist approach and shying away from the individualist approach to compete with Japan. However, ethically and in reguards to the Constitution I believe this is undermining teh sanctions to protect individuals and minorities.

That is one great thing about this country. There is a built in trump card when the majority is out of control. There is an undertone that the writer of the original article also feels this way. However, it all comes back to the bottom line.

Corporate Pig · 07-04-03

Quote:

Originally posted by NMaries
Mainly it is for the implementing of corporate or political manuevers to accomplish agendas in the best interests of everyone.

How can one claim a concept such as "its in the best interest of everyone", when they've never even asked everyone ?

Sure, political systems in US and Australia, suposably serve the interests of "everyone" - but we know thats not true !
As we only have a 2 Party System (well in Aust.), and how can these limitations in political choice, allow the election oif a representive who is working for "everyone's" best intest ?

It simple NMarine, it serve's your own personal interest, to believe in a concept such as "everyone's best interest".

NMaries · 07-05-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Corporate Pig
How can one claim a concept such as "its in the best interest of everyone", when they've never even asked everyone ?

Sure, political systems in US and Australia, suposably serve the interests of "everyone" - but we know thats not true !
As we only have a 2 Party System (well in Aust.), and how can these limitations in political choice, allow the election oif a representive who is working for "everyone's" best intest ?

It simple NMarine, it serve's your own personal interest, to believe in a concept such as "everyone's best interest".

It's not in "everyone's best interest." That is not disputed. Usually businesses pay a lot of money for sociologists to take surveys and observe human behavior to find better ways to keep their business in the black. That's what I'm talking about, the impact of these studies.

This particular study caught my interest. While it seems harmless on the surface it doesn't really explore the downsides on society as a whole. Already more companies are trying to incourage team players, but what does the do to businesses in the USA. The USA is developed around an indivualist society, therefore, I believe that taking these action is not productive and will lead to many valuable workers quitting. "Working for the Man" is instaled in the majority population as "wrong." If you have the goods you deserve "incentive." Teamwork is valued on loyalty not production.

Corporate Pig · 07-08-03

Quote:

Originally posted by NMaries
It's not in "everyone's best interest." That is not disputed. Usually businesses pay a lot of money for sociologists to take surveys and observe human behavior to find better ways to keep their business in the black. That's what I'm talking about, the impact of these studies.

This particular study caught my interest. While it seems harmless on the surface it doesn't really explore the downsides on society as a whole. Already more companies are trying to incourage team players, but what does the do to businesses in the USA. The USA is developed around an indivualist society, therefore, I believe that taking these action is not productive and will lead to many valuable workers quitting. "Working for the Man" is instaled in the majority population as "wrong." If you have the goods you deserve "incentive." Teamwork is valued on loyalty not production.

thats a bit of a stretch...
a report claiming to have investigated the social & political reactionaries of people thru "transaction cost economics" - and how this relates to Corporate America...
I think you completely failed to provide the link between these 2 concepts.

Business American style... what can one say...
Maybe you should look up the word "Bankruptcy" and explain its meaning in assocaition wtih WorldCom.

Quote:

Bankrupt telephone company WorldCom said on Thursday it won a contract to build a wireless telephone network in Iraq as the post-war country tries to rebuild and restore communications and other basic services.

WorldCom, which is changing its name to MCI, said it was on track to have a small wireless network operating in June. It declined to comment on the location of the network or size of the contract.

Refer: ZDNet UK News Friday 16th May 2003
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t298-s2134830,00.html

and from elsewhere on the same matter...

Quote:

...A Defence Department official, however, said that the network will be built on GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) technology -- the standard in most of the world except the US where CDMA (code division multiple access) dominates the airwaves.

"Not only is GSM more or less the standard over there, but we are trying to patch together a system that more or less already exists," said Lt. Col. Ken McClellan, who works in the Office of the Secretary of Defence. "We are trying to get the base network".

McClellan estimated that the contract is worth about $30m and depends on the options exercised, such as the number of towers built and phones distributed.

"As currently envisioned, it is probably a minimum of 12 towers to get Baghdad going and up to 10,000 phones," said McClellan. "The phones are for US government people who need to communicate with each other and for Iraqi officials who need to communicate with each other and with American officials."

Refer: Yahoo News UK & Ireland Tuesday May 20, 04:11 PM
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030520/152/e0g7s.html

So to translate for those who dont understand...
Its good business practise to award a contract to a Bankrupt company. A company which previously had only ever built CMDA cell structures in the world - but is now attempting its first ever GSM project...
A Contract which was awarded after the invasion of Iraq, to help rebuild the country... but only for American business and american political interests.

Oh... and drawing back on NMarine's piece...
One could only ever desribe the WorldCom/MCI business structure as Individualist, while telling all employee's they are part of a "team". A 'team' of individuals working to further the (economic) interests of the Opportunist.
Hence: slave labour.

Sixgun_Symphony · 07-08-03

Quote:

Originally posted by Corporate Pig

Oh... and drawing back on NMarine's piece...
One could only ever desribe the WorldCom/MCI business structure as Individualist, while telling all employee's they are part of a "team". A 'team' of individuals working to further the (economic) interests of the Opportunist.
Hence: slave labour.

You mean 'wage slave' don't you?

Very few people ever get rich by working for someone else. You only have the opportunity to become rich by starting your own business.

That people are 'wage slaves' is because they chose the security of wages for hours worked rather than to risk everything on a business venture of their own.

NMaries · 07-08-03

I think business owners got this weird idea that paying attention to employees makes up for everyone that works for them barely making ends meet.