Collectivism weights decision-making toward the collective or from a social dynamic value set. One factor in decision-making could be, maintaining harmony within the group. So a person might sacrifice what they want to go with the decision of the group. So this like many things is not in itself good or bad but it’s in where and how it’s used.
A person might decide to leave their job to take on the role of caretaker of a sick family member, allowing other family members not to sacrifice their jobs or a big part of their lives. A person might want to go to a different restaurant but is willing to go with the group as to not make a fuss. Or maybe the group is doing something unacceptable or inadvisable, but the group’s interdependence and influence is so strong a person just goes along with it. In both cases, a decision has to be made weighing it against the social outcome of the situation. It rarely is the case that a decision doesn’t impact or say something about the group or the individual. To go against the group might be received as or a statement of saying I’m not a part of the group.
So while one collectivist decision-making method might be maintaining harmony, other collectivist decision-making styles might be seeking validation, affirmation, approval, popularity, admiration, respect, consensus, momentum, social wellbeing etc. I think there are shades within each of these that are positive, constructive, supportive, edifying and even necessary but there are also shades of this that can be erroneous, manipulative and self-seeking. When the objective is to appease the group, a fallacy can happen when the group might be operating toward an erroneous inevitability and the group’s momentum is feedback looping and snowballing itself toward that direction, without a check or moment of self-awareness.
As individualism sacrifices consideration at the group level. Collectivism sacrifices consideration at the the individualistic level. Individualism and collectivism is a decision-making process, placing judgment of ultimately where to put the value and where to put the compromise – will it be on the individual or collective.
If an individualist chef creates recipes for himself, a collectivist chef serves a menu for the group. While the first chef might be satisfied cooking what they want to cook, they might not find a following of customers. And maybe the second chef might do a good job of finding customers, they might have no identity of who they are as a chef or what they cook. I think the ideal is to operate in some balance and exchange between the two.