Universalism vs. Particularism.

Universalism vs. Particularism.
The universalist, or rule-based, approach is roughly: "What is good and right can be defined and ALWAYS applies."  In particularist cultures, far greater attention is given to the obligations of relationships and unique circumstances.   Take the case of trying to cross the street at the red light.  In a very rule-based society like the U.S., you will still be frowned at even if there is no traffic.  It tends to imply equality in the sense that all persons, or citizens, falling under the rule should be treated the same.  On the contrary, in Asian societies like Taiwan, where particularist judgements focus on the exceptional nature of circumstances, it is likely to be OK with one if it is his/her brothers or friends that violate the traffic rule.  These people are not "citizens", but their "friends" or "brothers".  This difference probably explains why there have been difficulties in implementing a judicial system that is credible in our country.
Universalist	Particularist
Focus is more on rules than relationships Legal contracts are readily drawn up A trustworthy person is the one who honors his or her word or contract There is only one truth or reality which has been agreed to A deal is a deal	Focus is more on relationships than on rules Legal contracts are readily modified A trustworthy person is the one who honors changing mutualities There are several perspectives on reality relative to each participant Relationships evolve
Reconciliation between Universalism and Particularism:  Adopt a central guidelines with local adaptation and discretion.  Some suggestions:
For Universalist	For Particularist
Be prepared for "rational", "professional" arguments and presentations that push for your acquiescence Do not take impersonal, "get down to business" attitudes as rude	Be prepared for personal "meandering" or "irrelevancies" that do not seem to be going anywhere   Do not take personal, "get to know you" attitudes as small talk
Universalism vs. Particularism Individualism vs. Communitarianism Neural vs. Emotional Specific vs. Diffuse Achievement vs. Ascription

Individualism vs. Communitarianism.
In a society where individualism prevails such as the U.S., people regard themselves primarily as individuals, an it is more important to focus on individuals so that they can contribute to the community as and if they wish.  In a communitarian society like Japan, people's opinions are just the opposite: People think of themselves as part of a group, and consider the community first since that is shared by many individuals.  In this aspect, Taiwan is more of a communitarian society, although the tendency is not as strong as in Japan.
Individualism	Communitarianism
More frequently use of "I" form. Decisions made on the spot by representatives during negotiation People ideally achieve alone and assume personal responsibility Vacations taken in pairs, even alone	More frequently use of "We" form Decisions referred back by delegate to organization People ideally achieve in groups which assume joint responsibility Vacations in organized groups or with extended family
Reconciliation between Individualism and Communitarianism:  Give clear objectives that need individual initiative and accountability to succeed.  Some suggestions are:
For Individualists	For Communitarians
Show patience when negotiating or discussing with communitarians Notice that conducting business when surrounded by helpers means that his person has high status is his/her organization Communitarians' aim is to build lasting relationships	Prepare for quick decisions and sudden offers from individualists Notice that Conducting business alone means that this person is respected by his/her company and has its esteem   Individualists' aim is to make a quick deal

Affective vs. Neutral
In relationships between people, reason and emotion both play a role.  Which of these dominates will depend upon whether we are affective, that is we show our emotions, in which case we probably get an emotional response in return, or whether we are emotionally neutral in our approach.  Members of cultures which are affectively neutral do not express their feelings but keep them carefully controlled and subdued.  In contrast, in cultures high in affectivity, people show their feelings plainly by laughing, smiling, grimacing, scowling and gesturing; they attempt to find immediate outlets for their feelings. Neutral cultures are not necessarily cold or unfeeling, nor are they emotionally constipated or repressed.  In fact, the amount of emotion we show is often the result of convention.  Americans, for example, tend to be on the expressive side.  Perhaps this is because with so many immigrants and such a large country they have had to break down social barriers again and again.  Most Asian countries, in contrast, belong to the neutral style.  There are a variety of problems of communication across cultural boundaries which arise from the differences between affective and neutral approaches.   Analysis of verbal communication patterns shows how they can result in different meanings perceived by affective and neutral cultures.  For instance, when talking to another person, an oriental language speaker would allow relatively longer silence between sentences, which is likely to be interpreted by western people as a failure to communicate.  Another example is that oriental societies tend to have a much more monotonous tone of voice, which is a symbol of self-control and respect.  To some western cultures, however, this monotonous pattern could be mistaken as lack of interest in communicating.  Things like touching other people, the space it is normal to keep between people, and assumptions about privacy, are all manifestations of affective or neutral cultures.  The following is a quick summary of these two cultural styles.
Affective	Neutral
Reveal thoughts and feelings verbally and non-verbally Transparency and expressiveness release tensions Emotions flow easily, effusively, vehemently and without inhibition Heated, vital, animated expressions admired Touching, gesturing and strong facial expressions common Statements declaimed fluently and dramatically	Do not reveal what they are thinking or feeling May (accidentally) reveal tension in face and posture Emotions often dammed up will occasionally explode Cool and self-possessed conduct admired Physical contact, gesturing or strong facial expressions often taboo Statements often read out in monotone
Reconciliation between Neutral and Affective cultures: Recognize the differences, and refrain from making any judgments based on emotions or the lack of them.  Some more suggestions:
For Affectives	For Neutrals
Put as much as you can on paper before a meeting Lack of emotional tone does not mean that they are disinterested or bored,   only that they do not like to show their hand Be prepared for discussions focused on the object and not so much on you as persons	When the affectives are expressing goodwill, respond warmly The affectives' enthusiasm, readiness to agree or vehement disagreement does not mean that they have made up their mind Be prepared for discussions mostly focused on you as personas and not so much on the object being discussed

Specific vs. Diffuse
This dimension measures how far people get involved with other's life space.  Take a research group as an example.  In specific-oriented cultures, the project leader would segregate out the task relationship he/she has with a subordinate, and insulates this "work relationship" from other dealings.  Therefore, the leader's authority only reaches where his/her work relationship with the subordinate is defined, and each area in which the two persons encounter each other is considered apart from the other.  Work and life are sharply separated in specific-oriented cultures life the U.S. In diffuse cultures, however, life space and every level of personality tends to permeate ALL others.  For example, a teacher would be treated by the student not only as an instructor in the classroom, but also has certain influence on the student's home life.   The boss-subordinate relationship usually does not stop only in the office; the boss is likely to have a say in other aspects of his/her employee's personal life.   Because of the importance of loyalty and the multiplicity of human bonds, diffuse cultures tend to have lower turnover and employee mobility.  Most East Asian cultures are highly diffuse-oriented.  The following are some characteristics of both cultures.
Specificity	Diffuseness
Direct, to the point, purposeful in relating Precise, blunt, definitive and transparent Principles and consistent moral stands independent of the person being addressed	Indirect, circuitous, seemingly "aimless" forms of relating Evasive, tactful, ambiguous, even opaque Highly situational morality depending upon the person and context encountered
Reconciliation between Specific- and Diffuse-oriented cultures: Recognize that privacy is necessary, but that complete separation of private life leads to alienation and superficiality.  Some tips:
For Specific-oriented People	For Diffuse--oriented People
Study the history, background and future vision of the diffuse-oriented people Let the meeting flow, occasionally nudging its process Respect a person's title, age, background connections	Study the objectives and principles of specific-oriented people  Be quick, to the point and efficient   Do not use titles or acknowledge skills that are irrelevant to issues being discussed

Achievement vs. Ascription
This dimension is about how status is accorded to people in different cultures.  The contrast between an achievement culture and an ascriptive culture is not difficult to understand.   Achievement means that people are judged on what they have accomplished and on their record.  Ascription means that status is attributed to you by things like birth, kinship, gender, age, interpersonal connections, or educational record.  The former kind of status is called achieved status and the latter ascribed status.   Achieved status refers to doing; ascribed status refers to being.  Take a look at the difference from another angle.  Achievement-oriented societies or organizations justify their hierarchies by claiming that senior people have "achieved more."  In ascription-oriented cultures, however, hierarchies are justified by "power-to-get-things-done."  Here are some examples. Let's assume that you are being interviewed by your potential boss and he/she is interested in knowing more about your educational background.  In an achievement culture, the first question is likely to be "What did you study?"  In contrast, this question will more likely be "Where did you study?" and only if it was a lousy university or one they do not recognize will this ascriptive interviewer asks what you studied.   An application of the above understanding is that designing a system which rewards people based solely on their individual performance could be risky.   An ascriptive-oriented superior could have in his/her mind that he/she is by definition responsible for increased performance.  If rewards are to be increased, it has to be done proportionately to ascribed status and not simply given to the person who may have contributed the most.  It should not be difficult how the U.S., an achievement culture, is different from Taiwan, an ascriptive culture.  The following are characteristics of both cultural styles.
Achievement-oriented	Ascription-oriented
Use of titles only when relevant to the competence brought to a specific task   Respect for superior in hierarchy is based on how effectively his/her job is performed and how adequate their knowledge Most senior managers are of varying age and gender and have shown proficiency in specific jobs	Extensive use of titles, especially when these clarify your status in the organization  Respect for superior in hierarchy is seen as a measure of your commitment to the organization and its mission   Most senior managers are male, middle-aged and qualified by their background
Reconciliation between Achievement- and Ascription-oriented cultures:Respect what people ARE so we can better take advantage of what they DO.  Some tips for getting along with both styles:
For Ascriptives	For Achievers
Respect the knowledge and information of the achievers, even if you suspect they are short of influence back home    Use the title that reflects how competent you are as an individual Do not underestimate the need of the achievers to do better or do more than is expected	Respect the status and influence of the ascriptives, even if you suspect they are short of knowledge.  Do not show them up. Use the title that reflects your degree of influence in your organization Do not underestimate the need of the ascriptives to make their ascriptions come true