Editing Power distance (section)

==Individualism/collectivism and power distance==
Different cultures have different views on power distance. Something that is related to and overlaps with power distance is [[individualism]] vs. [[Collectivism and individualism|collectivism]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Communication: intercultural communication|last1=Watson|first1=James|last2=Hill|first2=Anne|publisher=Bloomsbury|year=2015|location=London, UK}}</ref> Hofstede is the scholar behind both power distance and individualism and collectivism. Hofstede defines collectivism as "...a preference for a tightly knit social framework in which individuals can expect their relatives, clan, or other in-group to look after them, in exchange for unquestioning loyalty" and individualism as "...a preference for a loosely knit social framework in a society in which individuals are supposed to take care of themselves and their immediate families only."<ref name=":34" /> An example of an individualistic country is the United States, as people tend to care more about their own well-being than the good of the whole group. It is contrasted with China, a collectivist country people tend to worry more about the overall well-being of the group and put that at a higher importance than their personal wants or needs. Individualism and collectivism relate to power distance because they influence how a culture behaves in society.<ref name=":2" />

Individualism, collectivism, and power distance can be linked together in different ways. They are typically studied together because overall in scoring, a country's PDI score is positively correlated with its degree of collectivism. This is explained as individualistic countries being typically focused on an individual and their desires, where power status has a less significant role, and collectivist countries focusing on the collective good.<ref name=":2" /> Hofstede found that individualism, collectivism, and power distance are greatly correlated to a nation's wealth.<ref name=":6">{{cite journal |last1=Hofstede |first1=Geert |title=Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context |journal=Online Readings in Psychology and Culture |date=1 December 2011 |volume=2 |issue=1 |doi=10.9707/2307-0919.1014 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Wealthy countries usually score high for individualism and low on the Power Distance Index, while poorer countries score high for both collectivism and the PDI.<ref name=":6" />

A study conducted by Yuan Feirong and Jing Zhou demonstrates how individualism and collectivism correlate with power distance as well as its impact on creativity in a conceptual model.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Yuan|first1=Feirong|last2=Zhou|first2=Jing|date=Oct 2015|title=Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity and individual group member creativity: Power Distance and Creativity in Groups|journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior|language=en|volume=36|issue=7|pages=990–1007|doi=10.1002/job.2022}}</ref> The model examines the creativity of groups based on group member interactions that occur in face to face meeting or teleconferences, and individual employee contributions to the group. Cultures high on the PDI typically interact and speak less to group members, as they rely heavily on the person with the highest status in the group to determine and make final decisions. Therefore, high power cultures "may not always foster creativity, and can sometimes undermine it. They do not function in actual teams." Meanwhile, for low power distance cultures it is crucial for each individual to have a say in the overall group function which has proven to increase creativity and develop great innovations, and creativity in groups "highlights the value of group member cognitive diversity".<ref name=":3" /> Power distance influences cultures based on the index creating different environments for group creativity and interactions.