Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE

This article discusses the Individualism–Collectivism (I-C) dimension of national culture in the
Hofstede and GLOBE models. It identifies significant contradictions between these two culture
models, leading to conflicting relationships with external factors such as economic prosperity. The
validity of the items used to measure this construct in both models is critically assessed. The paper
suggests relabeling Hofstede's Individualism–Collectivism index as Self-orientation vs Work-
orientation and GLOBE's In-group collectivism as Family Collectivism. These proposed alternative
conceptualizations aim to reconcile the discrepancies between the two models and their dimension
scores, as well as their relationships with other external variables. The paper recommends a way
forward for future research to clarify which of the Hofstede/GLOBE scores is suitable for different
purposes, ultimately improving the clarity and reducing contradictions in future research findings.

The objective of this paper is to address the anomalies in the Individualism-Collectivism (I-C)
dimension found in the Hofstede and GLOBE models of national culture. The paper aims to provide
clarity and guidance for scholars conducting research that involves this crucial cultural dimension. To
achieve this, the authors analyze the content of the items used to measure the I-C dimensions in
both culture models.

In Hofstede's model, the Individualism index represents one pole of the I-C cultural dimension.
Individualism is defined as a society in which individuals have loose ties and primarily look after their
immediate family, while Collectivism represents a society where individuals are tightly integrated
into strong, cohesive in-groups throughout their lives in exchange for unwavering loyalty.

Hofstede originally used 14 items to measure I-C but did not offer a comprehensive theoretical
rationale for their selection, relying mainly on the items' ability to predict external variables to
validate the scale. However, this approach, known as criterion validity, is considered flawed from a
measurement theory perspective, as content validity should be the primary basis for selecting
measures.

The authors then examine how Hofstede computed his I-C index, focusing on the content and
reliability of the items used. They find that the six key items with factor loadings above 0.45 include
three items representing the Individualism pole, focusing on personal work goals, and three items
representing the Collectivism pole, focusing on work-related work goals. The authors argue that the
Collectivism pole is mislabeled because the work-related goals do not align with the traditional
understanding of collectivism as defined by Hofstede.

In light of this analysis and previous criticisms in the literature, the authors propose relabeling
Hofstede's I-C dimension as "Self-orientation vs. Work-orientation" to better reflect the content of
the dimension. They argue that this relabeling is supported by the strong correlations between the
dimension and related concepts such as enjoyment vs. duty and hedonism vs. skill.

In summary, this paper aims to resolve discrepancies in the I-C dimension between the Hofstede and
GLOBE models by examining the content and labeling of the dimension. It suggests a new label,
"Self-orientation vs. Work-orientation," for Hofstede's I-C dimension to better align with the content
of the items used in its measurement.
INDIVIDUALISM–COLLECTIVISM in GLOBE

The paper examines the I-C (Individualism-Collectivism) dimension in the Hofstede and GLOBE
models of national culture. It identifies issues with the content and labeling of this dimension in both
models. In Hofstede's model, the term "Collectivism" is found to be mislabeled because the
questions related to it are more work-oriented rather than group-oriented. The authors propose
relabeling it as "Self-orientation vs. Work-orientation." In the GLOBE model, the "In-group
Collectivism" dimension is also mislabeled, as it primarily relates to family rather than groups. The
authors suggest renaming it as "Family Collectivism." The paper concludes that these changes will
help researchers and practitioners better understand and use these cultural dimensions, addressing
issues of inconsistency and misinterpretation in the literature.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HOFSTEDE/GLOBE I-C DIMENSIONS

the authors explore the relationships between the Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) dimensions in the
Hofstede and GLOBE models of national culture. They raise questions about the consistency of these
dimensions across the two models and attempt to explain these relationships theoretically. Here are
the key points discussed in the paper:

1. Issues with Dimension Labels: The paper highlights that there are inconsistencies between
the labels used for the I-C dimensions in the Hofstede and GLOBE models and the content of
the questions used to measure these dimensions.

2. Relabeling of Dimensions: The authors suggest alternative labels for these dimensions to
better reflect the content of the items used for measurement. They propose relabeling
Hofstede's Individualism-Collectivism dimension as "Self-orientation vs. Work-orientation"
and GLOBE's In-group Collectivism as "Family Collectivism."

3. Relationships Between Dimensions: The paper examines the correlations between these
relabeled dimensions in Hofstede and GLOBE. They find that some correlations appear
counterintuitive but can be explained by the influence of economic prosperity. For instance,
poorer countries tend to score higher on both Hofstede's Work-orientation values and
GLOBE's Family Collectivism practices.

4. Future Research Implications: The authors suggest that future research in the field should
carefully consider the relabeled dimensions when examining cultural differences and their
impact on various variables. They also propose a need for a large-scale empirical study to
validate or challenge existing cultural models.

5. Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the input of reviewers and express their
gratitude for their constructive comments.