Universalism/Particularism

Universalism and particularism together comprise one of seven “cultural dimensions” identified by the Dutch cross-cultural researcher, Fons Trompenaars, in his book Riding the Waves of Culture. (Other dimensions include Individualism/Collectivism, Neutral/Affective, Specific/Diffuse, Achieved Status/Ascribed Status, Internal/External, and Sequen-tial/Synchronic and some are discussed elsewhere in this encyclopedia.)

Universalists and particularists differ in the priority they give to laws, rules, circumstances, and interpersonal relationships when making decisions. Universalists tend to emphasize rules and laws over relationships and circumstances while particularists tend to emphasize relationships and circumstances over rules and laws. Given this cultural dimension's potentially strong influence on decision making, individuals, groups, and organizations engaging in business that spans cultures can benefit from understanding it.

In particularistic cultures, people view laws and rules as guidelines that help organize the way people relate to each other. They do not see laws and rules as ends in themselves or as artifacts of an “exemplary” culture, but rather the means to the end or ideal of human friendship and harmony. Emphasis is placed on friendship and looking at the particular situation to decide, based on that friendship, what is right or wrong, rather than looking to a general rule or code.

In universalistic cultures, people view laws and rules as the ideal or the end goal. They view these codes or values as immutable standards that uphold society, including all friendships and relationships. Great emphasis is placed on agreements, codes of law, formal contracts, and other forms of rules to decide what is right. The details of the situation or the nature of the relationship of the parties involved is less important to the universalist than following the rules and laws, at all times and in all places.

National and Individual Levels

It is useful to consider universalism/particularism at different levels, including national and individual levels. Although it is difficult to associate entire nations and cultures with either universalism or particularism (because of the significant variance on these dimensions within these nations and populations), it is possible to examine averages of nations and to sense general differences among cultures. (Fons Trompenaars [and Charles Hampden-Turner], for example, have suggested that Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Sweden, and the United Kingdom represent strong universalist cultures, while Venezuela, Korea, Russia, China, and Portugal represent strong particularist cultures.)

At the individual level, people who behave according to universalistic patterns are referred to as universalists and people who behave according to particularistic patterns are referred to as particularists. Although, obviously, not everyone can be classified [Page 1658]as a particularist or a universalist, it is possible that many, if not most, people tend to subscribe more to one perspective than the other. To further illustrate the difference between a particularist and a universalist, we turn to a commonly used example:

Two close friends are driving down the street at a speed significantly over the legal limit. The driver of the car fails to see a pedestrian crossing the road and strikes him, resulting in a lawsuit.

Assuming no other form of evidence is available, the universalist would be more likely to testify in court that his or her friend was exceeding the speed limit than the particularist, because the universalist would place emphasis on the law (over the friendship) and the particularist would place emphasis on the friendship (over the law). Although this example is simple and perhaps an exaggeration of the expected behaviors of universalists and particularists, it succeeds in making the difference between the two clearer—the universalist's loyalty tends to lie with rules and laws, while the particularist's loyalty tends to lie with relationships and depend on situational specifics. So what does this mean for business?

...