Cultures have long been studied on how individualistic versus collectivistic they are. Accordingly, individualistic cultures focus on the needs and goals of the self, while collectivistic cultures prioritise the needs and goals of the group.

Singapore scores 20 out of 100 on Hofstede’s individualism index, with lower scores signalling a higher collectivism orientation. In comparison, the United States has a score of 91.

Intuitively, many of us imagine that collectivism is a good ingredient for groups to succeed. Logically, the more people prioritise their group above their own needs, the better the outcomes for everyone, right?

Well, not always.

Group goals versus relational goals

Imagine this: you are playing a football game and have the ball with you. It is a tense moment — you are still too far from the goal, and now, you have four critical, heart-pounding seconds to make a big decision: whom to pass the ball to.

On the one hand, you could pass it to your best friend Paul, whom you have known and played with for years. On the other hand, you could pass it to another player Jim, who is in a better position to receive it as he has fewer blockers than Paul.

It seems like an easy choice. Jim is obviously in a better position to take the pass.

Yet, in a recently published study, we find that many Singaporean university students who identified as collectivists choose to pass to their best friend Paul than the not-so-close teammate Jim, risking losing the ball to the opponent. Although semi-professional players in China who identified as collectivists never made such mistakes, it took them significantly longer to pass the ball to a stranger who was in a better position than a friend in the same position.

The idea that collectivistic cultures cooperate better as teams largely makes sense. But it appears that there are certain situations where they sacrifice the team’s outcomes, such as when the group’s goals conflict with their relational goals.

Though the better choice for the team would have been to pass the ball to Jim to score, people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to pass it to Paul, whom they are closer to, to preserve or strengthen this relationship. In other words, our research suggests that relationships within the group are more important than team goals.

This might also explain why the study found that collectivistic countries (including Singapore) have long performed worse than individualistic ones in team sports like football, basketball, and volleyball, both men’s and women’s. These effects hold even after controlling for the nation’s characteristics (e.g., GDP, geographical location, etc.) and the national team’s talent.

The cost of choosing relationships over teams

Prioritising relational goals is not inherently bad. Good, genuine interpersonal relationships have long been linked to a wealth of benefits, including better health and well-being.

For organisations, good professional relationships with other businesses and professionals also create valuable networks and potential growth opportunities.

However, the choice to sacrifice team outcomes in its place can be costly.

To illustrate, think about all the employees choosing to work on projects with the colleagues they like than the colleagues who are better qualified but less close to them.

Or, think about all the businesses or governments that hire people they already know over people they do not, regardless of how good they are at the job.

Concerningly, past research has found nepotism practices more prevalent in collectivistic countries than in individualistic ones. Recently, collectivistic Sri Lanka found itself in a devastating economic crisis largely blamed on an incompetent government rife with nepotism.

Re-evaluating our choices to start

Organisations that are highly collectivistic, in particular, may benefit from having a more nuanced understanding of the advantages and pitfalls of collectivism rather than buying into old assumptions that it always benefits the team.

Importantly, team and relational goals are not always mutually exclusive, and both are essential for successful organisations.

Hence, rather than shunning one for the other, it becomes an intricate balancing game of knowing whom to choose or lose — and when.

The article is an edited version of the first one published in The Business Times.