This research investigates the role that the individualist/collectivist dimension plays in the selection of the preferred method of building trust. Sixty five middle managers from a primary metal producer were analysed using two surveys. The individuals were classified as either individualists or collectivists and then asked to rate several statements regarding a preferred means of trust. The various means of developing trust were calculative, predictive, intentionality, capability and transference. The data collected should that only with calculative trust development did a clear preference exist between collectivists and individualists. The four remaining trust development processes were equally likely to be used by either group. The data also showed that neither race, nor language nor ethnic group could be used as a predictor of assignment to either cultural dimension. The selection of the sample population and the subsequent influence of organisation specific phenomenon were found to be highly influential on the selection of trust building process. Copyright / Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / unrestricted

I will present and defend the notion of what I call Positive Individualism. Its purpose is to set forth a standard by which people are to treat others and themselves. I consider a common conception of individualism, its flaws, and a process of refining it. I formulate Positive Individualism, an idea in which every individual is valuable and therefore ought to be treated with respect and dignity by others. If this conception and the standards set forth were to be applied, communities would be able to function successfully and without compromising the individual since, as I argue, the individual is the root of decision and action.

No description available.

published_or_final_version / Comparative Asian Studies / Master / Master of Arts

The research of organizational structure and control in the audit profession suggest that there is a contradiction in that auditors should both nurture collegialities while they at the same time have their own responsibility for their individual development and career. This creates a competitive situation among colleagues who in return are expected to maintain a good social relationship and team spirit with each individual. Subsequently, being part of the collegiality and being highly individualistic, gives rise to a theoretical dilemma where these opposing forces are supposed to coincide with each other.The purpose of this paper is to create a bigger understanding of how auditors at major accounting firms can handle the conflict that arises. In order to explore this dilemma, we conducted a qualitative study based on an abductive approach. We have made seven semi-structured interviews from a localistic view. In addition, we have limited our sample to auditors in the Big 4 of southern Sweden.Furthermore, we have chosen to analyse the conflict from an identity perspective to better understand how auditors can relate to both collegiality and individualism. Through this study we have concluded that it only looks like a paradox in theory. Our empirical evidence suggests that this is not a practical problem. This principal contradiction dissolves in the everyday chaos where one is automatically suppressed by the other. Our conclusion that auditors do not see this as a practical problem, does not lead to that the theoretical dilemma is unimportant. It rather requires a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. The conclusion also results into questioning what this means for the theory of control and organizational structure.This phenomenon can also be applied to other parts of society. Today's labour market is considered increasingly individualized where each individual is responsible for their own success, while they at the same time are supposed to consider the collegiality and collaborate with others as well as the company at large. Therefore, our study provides a social contribution in the form of increased understanding of how individuals deal with the conflict between collegiality and individualism. / Forskningen inom området organisationsstruktur och kontroll i revisionsbranschen tyder på att det finns en motstridighet i att revisorer både ska värna om kollegialiteten samtidigt som varje individ står som ensam ansvarig för sin egen utveckling och karriär. Detta skapar en konkurrenssituation till de kollegor som man förväntas upprätthålla goda sociala relationer till och samarbeta med. Att både vara en del av kollegialiteten och samtidigt vara starkt individualistisk, ger upphov till ett teoretiskt dilemma där dessa motpoler ska sammanfalla med varandra. Syftet med denna uppsats är att bidra till att skapa förståelse för hur revisorer på de större revisionsbyråerna hanterar denna konflikt. För att närma oss detta dilemma har vi gjort en kvalitativ undersökning som bygger på en abduktiv ansats. Vi har gjort 7 semistrukturerade intervjuer ur ett lokalistiskt perspektiv. Vi har begränsat vårt urval till revisorer inom Big 4 i södra Sverige. Vi har valt att analysera konflikten ur ett identitetsperspektiv för att tydligare begripa hur revisorer kan förhålla sig till både kollegialitets- och individualismaspekten. Genom detta har vi kommit fram till att det endast ser paradoxalt ut på ett teoriplan. Vår empiri tyder på att detta inte är ett praktiskt problem. Denna principiella motsättning löses i vardagens kaos där det ena per automatik undertrycks av det andra. Slutsatsen att revisorer inte ser detta som ett praktiskt problem leder dock inte till att det teoretiska dilemmat är oviktigt utan snarare att det kräver djupare kunskap om fenomenet. Slutsatsen leder dessutom till att man kan ifrågasätta vad detta betyder för de teorier som behandlar kontroll och organisationsstruktur. Detta fenomen kan även härledas till andra delar av samhället. Dagens arbetsmarknad anses i allt högre utsträckning individualiserad och varje individ får ansvara för sitt eget bästa samtidigt som man förutsetts att tänka på kollegialiteten och samarbeta med andra människor. Därför ger vår studie ett samhälleligt bidrag i form av ökad förståelse för hur individer hanterar konflikten mellan kollegialitet och individualism.

Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka hur nyblivna föräldrar i Sverigeargumenterar för att antingen döpa eller inte döpa sitt eller sina barn. Studienbaseras på semistrukturerade intervjuer. Dessa intervjuer fokuserar påföräldrarnas huvudargument. Intervjuerna har sedan kodats och kategoriseratsför att finna likheter och mönster. Föräldrarna som valde att döpa sina barnvar mer flexibla i sin syn på dopet som religiös handling och fokuserar iställetpå religion. Föräldrarna som inte ville döpa sina barn fokuserade på barnetsrätt att själv välja och att religion inte bör tvingas på ett barn. Slutsatsen iuppsatsen är att individualismen har stor inverkan på föräldrarnasargumentationer. / This paper looks to examine the view on baptise in Sweden. How recentlybecome parent’s argue in their decision on either baptise or not. The studyrelays on semi structured interviews with recently become parents. Theinterviews focus on the parent’s main arguments. The data analyses thru acoding system to build categories witch is aiming at finding similarities andpatterns. The parents witch baptise their children are flexible in their view onreligion and mean that baptism is an action of tradition. The parents who didnot baptise their children focuses on the freedom of choice fore their childrenand that religion are not to be forced on their children. The conclusion in thepaper is that the subject of individualism is interpreted in different ways.

These (Ph.D.)--Northeastern University, 2008. / Title from PDF title page. Available through UMI ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-117). Also issued in print.

Thesis advisor: R. Shep Melnick / Many political thinkers have suggested that religion is a necessary prerequisite for the proper functioning of American democracy. Foremost among them is Alexis de Tocqueville who argues, in particular, that religion serves as a counterbalance to individualism and crass acquisitiveness—two of the most worrisome aspects of American democracy. Yet, Tocqueville’s own analysis bids us to ask whether religion still serves this beneficial purpose nearly 200 years later, or whether democratization and individualism have not remade religion itself. The primary theme of the dissertation is therefore to investigate whether democratization and individualism have wrought changes of real significance in American religion and religious institutions. In the first part, I argue against the secularization thesis on the grounds that contemporary developments in American religion, such as the so-called rise of the “nones” and the growing distrust of organized religion, are explicable not by secularization but by democratization and individualism. To understand this phenomenon better, I return to the French liberal tradition of Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville to articulate a theory of democratic deformalization—a process whereby American democracy breaks down the “formal” elements of religion. In the second part, I argue that individualism has caused a host of quantitative changes in American religion, including declining church membership, dwindling church participation, and a collapse in the perceived importance of organized religion itself. There are notable qualitative changes as well, including increasingly tenuous connections to churches, a proliferation of religious options within churches, and a new megachurch model that is better able to cater to individual taste and preference. In the third and most substantial part, I take up the question of whether individualism itself has changed or evolved over time, in predictable or unpredictable ways. Here, I argue that there has been a general shift from utilitarian individualism towards expressive individualism, with profound consequences for religious institutions and for society itself. The former, with its connection to the Protestant work ethic and Puritan social philosophy tends to cause an inclination in individuals to partake in community, submit to institutions, and follow moral and religious rules; the latter, with its belief in authenticity, causes a profound disdain for communal sources of authority, social institutions, and moral constraints. I conclude by arguing that the anthropology of expressive individualism, and its historical growth since the 1960s, proves to be the fundamental cause behind all these changes. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2020. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

No description available.

No description available.