Abstract
This paper examines the Individualism–Collectivism (I-C) dimension of national culture in the Hofstede and GLOBE models. We identify major contradictions between the two culture models, which result in contradictory relationships with external variables such as economic prosperity. We critically evaluate the content validity of the items used to measure this construct in both models. Based on our analysis, we suggest that Hofstede's Individualism–Collectivism index be relabelled as Self-orientation vs Work-orientation and GLOBE's In-group collectivism as Family Collectivism. We demonstrate how the proposed alternative conceptualizations of the Individualism–Collectivism dimensions in both the Hofstede and GLOBE models can help reconcile the anomalous relationships between these two models of national culture, and between their dimension scores and other external variables of interest to researchers. We recommend a way forward for future research incorporating the collectivism dimensions that identifies which of the Hofstede/GLOBE scores is appropriate for differing purposes. This will help to make future research findings clearer, and to reduce contradictions and anomalies. Implications drawn from such research should also be clearer as a result.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
In the course of Hofstede's research, the questionnaire items used to measure the dimensions of national culture have been revised several times (see Appendix A for items used/suggested by Hofstede to measure the I-C dimension across different Values Survey Modules). As shown in the Appendix, whereas Hofstede's original IBM survey used 14 items to measure I-C, different items have been added and removed over the years in VSM80, VSM82, VSM94 and VSM08, implying that previous versions were not reliable.
A serious anomaly between Hofstede and GLOBE is that the term “family” is included in one of the items in Hofstede to represent the individualism end of the I-C dimension (see Appendix A, IBM survey question A18), whereas, in the case of GLOBE, in-group collectivism is based on family relationships. This is representative of the confusion that exists between the two models, but which becomes evident only when we compare the items actually used to compile scores for the same or similar dimensions in the two models.
We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
GLOBE instruments are available at: http://www.thunderbird.edu/sites/globe/globe_instruments/index.htm. All items are measured using seven-point Likert-type scales. The mean country score across respondents for each item and then across items for each country is the respective country I-C score for each dimension.
References
Bond, M. H. 2002. Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede's ecological analysis – A 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1): 73–77.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. 2004. The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111 (4): 1061–1071.
Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. 2010. GLOBE practices and values: A case of diminishing marginal utility? Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (8): 1316–1324.
Churchill, G. A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (1): 64–73.
Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. 2009. Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (4): 1339–1358.
Garcia, M. F., Posthuma, R. A., & Roehling, M. V. 2009. Comparing preferences for employing males and nationals across countries: Extending relational models and social dominance theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (12): 2471–2493.
Gelfand, M., Bhawuk, D., Nishii, L., & Bechtold, D. 2004. Individualism and collectivism. In R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: 602–653. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. 2006. What did GLOBE really measure? Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 882–896.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Vipin, G. 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., & Javidan, M. 2004. Overview of GLOBE. In R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies: 9–28. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. 2000. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65 (1): 19–51.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & Sully de Luque, M. 2006. Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE's and Hofstede's approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6): 897–914.
Maseland, R., & van Hoorn, A. 2009. Explaining the negative correlation between values and practices: A note on the Hofstede–GLOBE debate. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (3): 527–532.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4): 370–396.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1): 3–72.
Parboteeah, K. P., Addae, H., & Cullen, J. 2005. National culture and absenteeism: An empirical test. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 13 (4): 343–361.
Rossiter, J. R. 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (4): 305–335.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. 2010. Negative practice–value correlations in the GLOBE data: Unexpected findings, questionnaire limitations and research directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (8): 1330–1338.
Triandis, H. 1993. Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research, 27 (3/4): 155–180.
Triandis, H. 1998. Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1): 118–128.
Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (8): 1259–1274.
Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. 2010. Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (8): 1294–1315.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to our area editor, Professor Rosalie Tung, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions, which helped greatly in improving the paper. Both authors contributed equally to the paper, and they are solely responsible for all errors and omissions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by Rosalie Tung, Area Editor, 9 November 2010. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.
Appendices
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
GLOBE SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALISM–COLLECTIVISM Footnote 4
In-Group Collectivism
Practices
1–11. In this society, children take pride in the individual accomplishments of their parents.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
1–23. In this society, parents take pride in the individual accomplishments of their children.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
1–28. In this society, aging parents generally live at home with their children.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
1–39. In this society, children generally live at home with their parents until they get married.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
Values
3–11. In this society, children should take pride in the individual accomplishments of their parents.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
3–23. In this society, parents should take pride in the individual accomplishments of their children.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
3–29. How important should it be to members of your society that your society is viewed positively by persons in other societies?
It should not be important at all – It should be moderately important – It should be very important
3–34. Members of this society should:
Take no pride in being a member of the society – Take a moderate amount of pride in being a member of the society – Take a great deal of pride in being a member of the society
Institutional Collectivism
Practices
1–7. In this society, leaders encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
1–12. The economic system in this society is designed to maximize:
Individual interests – Collective interests
1–29. In this society, being accepted by the other members of a group is very important.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
1–35. In this society:
Group cohesion is valued more than individualism – Group cohesion and individualism are equally valued – Individualism is valued more than group cohesion (reverse code)
Values
3–7. I believe that in general, leaders should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer.
Strongly agree – Neither agree nor disagree – Strongly disagree (reverse code)
3–12. I believe that the economic system in this society should be designed to maximize:
Individual interests – Collective interests
3–36. In this society, most people prefer to play:
Only individual sports – Some individual and some team sports – Only team sports
3–37. I believe that:
Group cohesion is better than individualism – Group cohesion and individualism are equally valuable – Individualism is better than group cohesion (reverse code)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brewer, P., Venaik, S. Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE. J Int Bus Stud 42, 436–445 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.62
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.62