Cross- cultural Communication This page intentionally left blank

IDV individualism/collectivism
This dimension represents a bipolar scale. It describes the relationships 
whereby an individual is integrated with other members of society. At the 
top end of the scale, individual self- interest predominates and personal time 
is important, as is freedom of association and expression in the workplace. 
Ties are loose and the emphasis is on individual freedom. The individual is 
seen as the core of the social unit, with group goals generally being subor-
dinate to personal goals. People are supposed to look after themselves and 
their immediate families and to choose their own affiliations. Progress is 
straight- lined and upward, and change is inevitable. Self- esteem and per-
sonal success are closely linked. At the bottom end of the scale, people are 
born into strong, cohesive groups which are collective in their treatment of 
individuals. People belong to ‘in-groups’ (extended families, villages, clans, 
tribes) which are expected to protect them in exchange for loyalty. All are 
supposed to look after the interests of the group and actively promote the 
group’s values and beliefs. There is respect for elders, status and hierarchy, 
while duty, harmony, politeness and modesty are important.
A highly individualistic country such as the USA (score: 91) can be com-
pared with a highly collective society such as Japan (score: 46). In relation to 
business, the scale measures the degree to which managers feel empowered 
to make decisions individually or the degree to which they feel constrained 
to consult and implement a commonly agreed decision.
In management terms, the individualism versus collectivism scale illumi-
nates how decision making takes place and how employees see themselves 
in relation to their company. In an individualist management culture, such 
as in North America, Anglophone countries and Northern Europe, manag-
ers tend to take their own decisions in relation to their job responsibilities 
and their budget. In a more collective management culture, decisions will 
be arrived at through a process of consultation and discussions, although 
the authority to make final decisions may still be vested at the top of the 
organization. Personnel would expect the possibility of career advancement 
to be based on an assessment of competence and laid down procedures for 
selection for promotion and regular appraisal. The job itself is generally 
more important than relationships with work colleagues. Hofstede regarded 
North American, Anglophone, Dutch and Nordic cultures as being more 
individualistic in approach, whereas Asian cultures tended to be more col-
lectivist. The prime example of a collectivist management culture is Japan, 

---

34 Cross-Cultural Communication
where decision making is carried out through a consultative process, with 
everyone involved in the discussion and decision making.
The Japanese spend considerable time and effort in building trust and 
forming relationships, which they see as the key to success. In collec-
tivist cultures, there is a strong moral relationship between employer and 
employee; relationships are based on trust and come before tasks. In business, 
relatives and close friends come before strangers and time is seen as being 
for relationship building.
Some examples of Hofstede’s scores for this dimension are as follows.
USA
91
Sweden
71
Iran
41
Australia
90
France
71
Arab countries
38
UK
89
Germany 67
Greece
35
Canada
80
Israel
54
Mexico 30
Italy
76
Spain
51
Pakistan 14
Denmark
74
Japan
46
Venezuela 12
Figure 2.6 Selected individualism/collectivism scores (Hofstede, Hofstede and 
Minkov, 2010: 95–7, Table 4.1)
Example
A UK company found itself in danger of missing a deadline on an impor-
tant merger and acquisition because its parent company in Japan delayed 
giving its approval to the deal. Only later did the UK subsidiary discover 
that the decision was delayed because of the consultative process, which 
meant that the Japanese staff were given the opportunity to discuss 
the proposal and approve the decision to go ahead. As a result, not all 
of them were able to do so in the time available. In this situation, the 
integrity of the collective decision- making process was considered more 
important to the Japanese than the rapid conclusion of the deal.
Hofstede widens his research in this dimension by considering the effect on 
individualism or collectivism within families and the influence of language, 
personality, behaviour and differences at school and in the workplace.