The way you give to your community largely depends on those around you

Culture shapes volunteering

Culture shapes volunteering. We all know that. A person’s or community’s traditions, societal expectations and values affect why, how and where they volunteer. But how exactly? And what can we, as leaders of volunteers in multi-cultural societies, do to adapt our systems to better meet the different expectations of potential volunteers?

In October I went to the Volunteer Futures conference, hosted by Volunteer BC. Among a number of excellent presentations, one had more insights for me than all the others combined. It was by the executive director of Volunteer Yukon, Vladyslav Hryhorenko, and was called “Volunteering and Culture: Understanding Global Perspectives through Cultural Dimensions.”

In it Hryhorenko illustrated, using two different scientific frameworks, exactly what aspects of a culture affect volunteering behaviour in what ways, and provided tips and ideas for ensuring our programs provide appropriate opportunities for people from those cultures. Understand, this is not about race. This is about the dominant culture of the society wherein someone was raised.

While I would love to write about all the insights that I gained from the presentation, I can’t condense a 50-minute talk into under a thousand words, so I’ve chosen one particular focus from one of the frameworks to share with you: the collectivism vs. individualism dimension from the Hofstede Framework.

What is the Hofstede Framework, and what does that particular dimension measure?

The Hofstede Framework, developed by Dutch researcher Geert Hofstede in the 1970s, looks at the cultures of the world’s countries through six dimensions: collectivism vs. individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, motivation toward achievement and success (originally masculine vs. feminine), long-term vs. short-term orientation, and indulgence vs. restraint. It then places each country on a spectrum for each dimension.

The collectivism vs. individualism dimension compares cultures on how they balance personal independence with community interdependence. In a collectivist society the key word is “we,” and harmony must be maintained in order to keep the group strong. In individualist societies, the important word is “I” and confrontation is seen as the way to develop strength.

I think you can see how that might affect volunteering!

It doesn’t really affect who volunteers or how often, but it would certainly affect how. Someone who is from a culture that leans toward the individualism side of the spectrum would be more likely to want control over what they do and when. They may prefer to advocate on their own for a cause they believe in, or join a grassroots organization where they have more say in how things are done. If they join an established charity, they may ask for flexibility in the hours they serve or in the ways they accomplish tasks.

On the other hand, someone from a culture that leans toward the collectivism end of the spectrum is more likely to look for opportunities to volunteer within established groups. They may prefer to follow the accepted norms and procedures, and see their volunteerism as a way of supporting the community, rather than as a means of self-expression or advancement.

According to the world dimension maps on the Geert Hofstede website, the U.S. scores highest in individualism, with Canada, Australia, the UK and most western European countries also scoring high in individualism. China scores highest in collectivism, with India, Russia, Japan and certain African countries also scoring high on that end of the spectrum.

So how can we adapt our programs to take advantage of this information?

If, as Hryhorenko said in his presentation, “Volunteerism always carries the values and traditions of the culture that produces it,” then most volunteers raised in the western world will have naturally adopted individualist values. And you can see that in online discussions and from presentation leaders about how to give today’s volunteers more autonomy. I admit I’ve been one of those pushing that.

But maybe I’ve been wrong. At least partly.

As culture shapes volunteering, changing to a more self-directed format won’t be because “today’s volunteers demand it”. Our dominant individualism culture demands it. But giving in to that demand completely can exclude those from cultures that are more on the collectivism end of the spectrum.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t make roles more autonomous. I’m advocating for balance. One size doesn’t fit all. Some roles or tasks should be as self-directed as you can make them—micro-volunteer opportunities, remote opportunities, etc. Others, though, should emphasize team work and collaboration.

These insights can also help us with targeted recruitment.

Look at the requirements of your roles; do they need a strong team to move forward? Maybe someone from a more collectivist society would be a better fit. Does the role need someone who can work and make decisions independently? Go for a person from an individualist society.

Understand; these are generalizations.

The insights are for the general mass of people from a particular location; a specific person from that country may vary widely from the norm. There can also be pockets of culture within a larger culture. Indigenous populations, for example, or specific religious communities, can be diametrically opposite to the society around them. Don’t label anyone, and don’t make assumptions.

And this is just one of the six dimensions of one framework.

There are so many more insights to be found in the other five dimensions and the other cultural frameworks. Culture shapes volunteering through its values, history, governance structures, traditions and more. I encourage you to do some research, and find new ways to improve your cross-cultural volunteer engagement. Have fun!

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.