See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227470299

Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE

Article  in  Journal of International Business Studies · April 2011

DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2010.62 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

133 5,695

2 authors, including:

Sunil Venaik
The University of Queensland
51 PUBLICATIONS   1,816 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

archetypal analysis of world value survey data View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sunil Venaik on 05 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of International Business Studies (2011) 42, 436–445
& 2011 Academy of International Business All rights reserved 0047-2506
www.jibs.net

RESEARCH NOTE

Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede
and GLOBE

Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik Abstract

This paper examines the Individualism–Collectivism (I-C) dimension of national
UQ Business School, University of Queensland, culture in the Hofstede and GLOBE models. We identify major contradictions
Brisbane, Australia between the two culture models, which result in contradictory relationships
with external variables such as economic prosperity. We critically evaluate the

Correspondence:
P Brewer, UQ Business School, University of
Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
Tel: þ 61 7 3346 8129;
Fax: þ 61 7 3346 8166;
E-mail: p.brewer@business.uq.edu.au
PY
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
O
proposed alternative conceptualizations of the Individualism–Collectivism
dimensions in both the Hofstede and GLOBE models can help reconcile the
C
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
R

the collectivism dimensions that identifies which of the Hofstede/GLOBE scores

is appropriate for differing purposes. This will help to make future research
O

findings clearer, and to reduce contradictions and anomalies. Implications

drawn from such research should also be clearer as a result.
TH

Journal of International Business Studies (2011) 42, 436–445.

doi:10.1057/JIBS.2010.62
U

Keywords: national culture; Hofstede; GLOBE; individualism; collectivism

A

INTRODUCTION
While Hofstede (1980, 2001) has for many years been regarded
as the doyen of cultural research, his culture model has recently
been updated and expanded by the GLOBE study (House, Hanges,
Javidan, Dorfman, & Vipin, 2004). GLOBE and Hofstede use similar
techniques, and in fact “The scales to measure the first three
dimensions (in GLOBE) are designed to reflect the same constructs
as Hofstede’s (2001) dimensions labelled Uncertainty Avoidance,
Power Distance and Individualism” (House & Javidan, 2004: 13).
So similarities between the models are to be expected. What is
also happening, as expected, is that the GLOBE scores are being
increasingly used by researchers in ways similar to the ways the
Hofstede scores have been used over many years (e.g., Fischer &
Mansell, 2009). This application of culture dimensions to the
analysis of other variables in management is naturally an
important part of progress in understanding the effects of
Received: 22 March 2010
Revised: 25 October 2010
differences in national cultures. However, for these discovered
Accepted: 9 November 2010 relationships to be meaningful and useful for researchers and
Online publication date: 27 January 2011 practitioners, it is critical that scholars have an unequivocal
 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE
understanding of what specific culture dimensions
mean, and how they are defined and measured
across different culture models. For this reason,
scholars have recently been looking closely at the
Hofstede and GLOBE models with a view to high-
lighting and clarifying anomalies or contradictory
relationships between the same national culture
dimensions across the different models, as well as
between the dimensions and other external vari-
ables of interest to researchers. For example, there
was an exchange of views on the models in JIBS
(Hofstede, 2006; Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges,
& Sully de Luque, 2006). A recent paper by Maseland
and van Hoorn (2009), a critique by Brewer and
Venaik (2010) and commentary by Taras, Steel,
and Kirkman (2010) discuss the several significant
negative correlations between practices and values
scores in the GLOBE study. Another paper clarifies
an apparently anomalous relationship between
Hofstede and GLOBE Uncertainty Avoidance scores
(Venaik & Brewer, 2010).
We note that, like the anomalous Hofstede/
GLOBE Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) relationships,
there is a similar problem associated with Indivi-
dualism–Collectivism (I-C), which both Hofstede
and GLOBE include in their culture models as
R
distinct dimensions. They do this at the national
O
level, as opposed to the individual level, where
another collectivism specialist, Triandis, is focused
TH
(Triandis, 1993, 1998). This distinction is impor-
tant, because at the same level of analysis (national),
one would expect a high level of convergence, that
is, similar significant positive or negative relation-
U
ships between the Hofstede and GLOBE I-C scores
and external variables of interest such as national
A
economic prosperity. However, we find that such
results are in fact contradictory. As shown in Table 1,
whereas Hofstede’s Collectivism has a strongly
Table 1 Relationship between Collectivism and economic variables
Hofstede Collectivism GLOBE Institutional
(Work-orientation) Collectivism practices
Economic 0.84*** 0.33*
prosperitya,b
Ease of doing 0.56** 0.39**
business rank
a
Hofstede (2001: 272); n¼50.
b
Gelfand et al. (2004: 482), n¼57.
*po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.001 (two-tailed).
Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
437
significant negative relationship with economic
prosperity (r¼0.84, po0.001), in the case of GLOBE
there is a moderately positive relationship between
Institutional Collectivism practices and economic
prosperity (r¼0.33, po0.05). Thus Hofstede sup-
ports a negative relationship between Collectivism
and prosperity, whereas GLOBE supports a positive
link between Institutional Collectivism practices
and prosperity. Our own analysis shows a similar
contradictory relationship with the World Bank’s
Ease of Doing Business country ranking (high rank
indicates greater difficulty in doing business in a
country) (see Table 1, row 2). We found a significant
positive relationship between Ease of Doing Busi-
ness ranking and Hofstede Collectivism (r¼0.56,
po0.01), but a significant negative relationship
with GLOBE Institutional Collectivism practices
PY
(r¼0.39, po0.01).
Besides the problem of conflicting findings,
researchers seem to arbitrarily choose one or the
other national culture scores to explain their depen-
O
dent variable. As shown in Table 2, Parboteeah,
Addae, and Cullen (2005) explain their national
C
absenteeism (practices) variable using Hofstede
Collectivism and GLOBE Collectivism values rather
than practices. In contrast, Garcia, Posthuma, and
Roehling (2009) examine the relationship between
preferences for nationals in employment-related
decisions (which are essentially values) with
Hofstede Collectivism and GLOBE Collectivism
practices rather than values. And Fischer and
Mansell (2009) explain normative commitment
values using all collectivism scores – Hofstede
Collectivism and all GLOBE Collectivism practices
and values. The arbitrary use of one or the other
national culture score without adequate justifica-
tion is likely to undermine our understanding of
culture and how it affects behaviour.
Correlations
GLOBE Institutional GLOBE In-group (Family) GLOBE In-group
Collectivism values Collectivism practices (Family) Collectivism
values
0.48** 0.78** 0.29*
0.60** 0.68** 0.21
Journal of International Business Studies
 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE
438
Table 2 Relationship between Collectivism and external variables
Dependent variable Hofstede
Collectivism
(Work-
orientation)
Absenteeism (practices) (Parboteeah, + +
Addae, & Cullen, 2005)
Preferences for nationals in employment- + ns
related decisions (values) (Garcia,
Posthuma, & Roehling, 2009)
Normative commitment (values) (Fischer & + ns
Mansell, 2009)
The objective of our paper therefore is to identify
and clarify the anomalies in the I-C dimension in
the two comparative models of national culture,
Hofstede and GLOBE, and to propose a way forward
for scholars who aim to use this important dimen-
sion of national culture in their research. We aim to
achieve this by examining closely the content of
the items used to measure the I-C dimensions in
both culture models.
R
ANALYSIS OF I-C DIMENSIONS IN HOFSTEDE
AND GLOBE
O
Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede
TH
Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) model includes an Indivi-
dualism index which he describes as one pole of the
Individualism–Collectivism cultural dimension. He
defines the two poles as follows: “Individualism
U
stands for a society in which the ties between
individuals are loose: Everyone is expected to look
A
after her/his immediate family only. Collectivism
stands for a society in which people from birth
onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive
in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime con-
tinue to protect them in exchange for unquestion-
ing loyalty” (Hofstede, 2001: 225).
In his original IBM survey, Hofstede used 14
items to measure I-C (see Appendix A, column
headed “IBM Survey”). Hofstede does not provide a
comprehensive theoretical rationale for the items
used, other than to say “the reliability of the VSM at
the country level has to be taken for granted; it
can indirectly be shown through the validity of the
scores in predicting dependent variables” (http://
stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/ManualVSM08.doc, p. 10,
accessed 15 December 2009).1 To validate the I-C
scale, Hofstede (2001, Appendix 6) presents a large
number of correlations between the I-C dimension
Journal of International Business Studies
Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
GLOBE GLOBE GLOBE In-group GLOBE In-group
Institutional Institutional (Family) (Family)
Collectivism Collectivism Collectivism Collectivism
practices values practices values

+
ns + ns
and external constructs of interest to researchers.
However, Hofstede provides few theoretical argu-
PY
ments for the significant correlations between
his I-C dimension and the external variables. It is
plausible that these correlations arise largely as a
consequence of a third variable that is related
O
to both the Hofstede’s I-C dimension and other
constructs, as Hofstede (2001: 253) himself acknow-
C
ledges: “This leads us to the issue of whether there
is a cause-and-effect relationship between indivi-
dualism and wealth y or whether both could be
caused by a third factor.” More critically, using
criterion validity as the primary and perhaps the
only basis for validating the measures of a construct
is fundamentally flawed from the perspective of
measurement theory. It is well recognized in the
measurement literature that the foremost basis for
choosing the measures of a construct is content
validity (Churchill, 1979; Rossiter, 2002): “there is
only one type of validity that is essential: content
validity” (Rossiter, 2002: 308). Once content valid-
ity is established, one can look at factor loadings
and other measures to assess the reliability of the
items used to measure a construct. Criterion-related
validity, where a construct is related to a number of
external constructs, is ineffective for validating the
measures used. As Borsboom, Mellenbergh, and van
Heerden (2004: 1065) warn: “Criterion validity was
truly one of the most serious mistakes ever made in
the theory of psychological measurement.” Thus
Hofstede’s validation of measures through predic-
tion is not supported by measurement theory.
With this problem in mind, we look at how
Hofstede computed his I-C index, and in particular
at the content and the reliability of the items
that go into the I-C scale. Hofstede obtained
responses on 14 work/life goals, and aggregated
these scores weighted by their respective factor
 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE
score coefficients (Hofstede, 2001: 492), which are
closely related to the factor loadings (Hofstede,
2001: 255) (see Appendix A). Thus items A9 and
A18, which have high factor loadings (0.82 and
0.86 respectively), have higher factor score coeffi-
cient weights (0.27 and 0.23 respectively) than
items A6 and A8, which have low factor loadings
(0.35 and 0.37 respectively) and correspondingly
lower weights (0.09 and 0.12 respectively). Hof-
stede does not report factor loadings below 0.35,
and, as expected, the factor score coefficients and
hence the weights of the items with factor loadings
below 0.35 are all below 0.10. Following Hofstede
(2001: 257), we limit our discussion to the six key
items in the IBM survey that have loadings above
0.45 (see work goal items and corresponding factor
loadings in bold at Appendix A). The three items
that represent the Individualism pole focus primar-
ily on “self”-related or “personal” work goals,
namely personal time (item A18, loading 0.86),
freedom (item A13, loading 0.49), and personal
sense of accomplishment (item A5, loading 0.46).
On the other hand, the three items that represent
the Collectivism pole focus on work-related work
goals, namely training opportunities (item A9,
loading 0.82), working conditions (item A12,
R
loading 0.69), and using skills (item A17, loading
O
0.63).
Analysis of the items used by Hofstede to measure
TH
I-C in his IBM survey, and the factor loadings of
these items, suggests that the Collectivism pole is
mislabelled. There is little “collectivist” (as defined
by Hofstede) about training opportunities, desirable
U
working conditions or using skills at work. These
goals are work-related, as opposed to the “self”-
A
oriented goals reflected in the Individualism end
of the I-C scale. Hofstede (2001: 257) himself
acknowledges that his labelling of the I-C dimension
might be inappropriate: “Rather than individual/
company, I have labelled the 14-goal, 40-country
Factor 1 individual/collective.” No further comment
or discussion is provided. Oyserman, Coon, and
Kemmelmeier (2002: 3) provide a critical review of
I-C research, and note that “the specific questions
used (by Hofstede) to assess individualism focused
on the workplace.” Similarly, in his comment to
Oyserman et al. (2002), Bond (2002: 74) observes
that “The first three work goals bear obvious
relations to individualism y how the last three
work goals described anything resembling collecti-
vism was, however, a mystery to many.” Support
for changing the nomenclature of Hofstede’s I-C
dimension is provided by Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishii,
Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
439
and Bechtold (2004: 441), who suggest “individual
freedom vs individual development” and “intrinsic
(work-related) vs extrinsic (nonwork-related)” as
alternative plausible labels for Hofstede’s I-C
dimension. Following our own critical analysis of
the items and the criticism in the literature, we
propose that the I-C dimension in Hofstede be
relabelled as Self-orientation vs Work-orientation.
The proposed nomenclature of Self-orientation
vs Work-orientation is further supported by the
strong correlation between this dimension and
enjoyment vs duty (r¼0.73, po0.05) and hedonism
vs skill (r¼0.76, po0.001), as reported in Hofstede
(2001: 509). Although Self-orientation is related
to Individualism, we suggest alternative labels
for both ends of the scale to distinguish it clearly
from Hofstede’s original Individualism–Collectivism
PY
label.
Individualism–Collectivism in GLOBE
The GLOBE study identifies two separate Collecti-
O
vism dimensions: Institutional Collectivism and
In-group Collectivism. Institutional Collectivism is
C
defined as “the degree to which organizational
and societal institutional practices encourage and
reward collective distribution of resources and
collective action” (House & Javidan, 2004: 12). In-
group Collectivism is defined as “the degree to
which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohe-
siveness in their organizations or families” (House
& Javidan, 2004: 12). Each GLOBE Collectivism
dimension is measured with two forms of que-
stions – practices (“as is”) and values (“should be”) –
resulting in four dimension scores for each country.
Appendix B summarizes the 16 GLOBE questions
(four “practices” and four “values” per dimension).
As in our Hofstede analysis above, we examine the
content validity of the questions used by GLOBE in
measuring the two Collectivism dimensions, before
looking at the I-C relationships between Hofstede
and GLOBE.
In the In-group Collectivism questionnaire, all
the practices questions and two of the values
questions relate to the relationship between parents
and their children. Four items concern taking pride
in each others’ accomplishments (practices ques-
tions 1–11 and 1–23, and values questions 3–11 and
3–23); the other two practices questions (1–28 and
1–29) relate to family living circumstances. These
questions are clearly highly family orientated
rather than group related. In fact, the word “group”
is not used in any of the items. As mentioned
above, In-group Collectivism is defined as “the
Journal of International Business Studies
 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE
440
degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty,
and cohesiveness in their organizations or families”
(House & Javidan, 2004: 12). But the items do not
ask at all about organizations, only about families.
So the dimension also appears to have a somewhat
misleading label. We propose that in order to
improve clarity and understanding, we relabel the
“In-group Collectivism” dimension in GLOBE as
“Family Collectivism”, reflecting six of the eight
relevant items. The more appropriate title of Family
Collectivism is further supported by the strong
correlation between this dimension and “strength
of family ties” (r¼0.48, po0.01) and “respect for
family and friends” (r¼0.76, po0.01) reported in
Gelfand et al. (2004: 486).
Next, we look at the content validity of the eight
questions used by the GLOBE study to measure
Institutional Collectivism practices and values
(see Appendix B for details). Our analysis indicates
that, as with the Hofstede I-C items, given the
content of the questions, the label of Institutional
Collectivism is somewhat imprecise. A review of the
items used to measure this dimension in GLOBE
shows that the term “group” appears in five of the
eight questions in the practices and values batteries
combined. This is worrisome, as it is the other
R
GLOBE Collectivism dimension, In-group Collecti-
O
vism, that emphasises “groups” in its label. Never-
theless, the questions in Institutional Collectivism
TH
relate broadly to leaders, groups or economic
systems that are elements of the organization of
societies, businesses, institutions and economies.
Based on these connections, we believe that
U
the label of Institutional Collectivism could be
retained.
A
To sum up, based on our examination of the
content of the items used to measure the I-C
dimensions in Hofstede and GLOBE, we conclude
that there are major issues in the correspondence
between the definition of the I-C dimensions, the
items used to measure these dimensions, and
the labels used to characterize the dimensions in
these two studies. A critical implication of these
disconnects is that researchers and practitioners
often attribute meaning and significance to the I-C
dimensions that are different from what these
constructs actually represent. Specifically, they
accept that all these dimensions reflect one single
bipolar construct, “Collectivism,” which, as our
analysis shows, is erroneous. In order to align the
construct labels with their definition and measure-
ment, we suggest the term “Self-orientation” vs
“Work-orientation” for Hofstede’s Individualism vs
Journal of International Business Studies
Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
Collectivism respectively, and “Family Collectivism”
for GLOBE’s In-group Collectivism. We believe that
using these new terms, which we do from here
on, to characterize the Hofstede and GLOBE I-C
dimensions will help to build sound, logical
theoretical explanations for the seemingly anom-
alous relationships among the I-C dimensions in
Hofstede and GLOBE, as well as between these
I-C dimensions and other external variables of
interest to researchers. These issues are discussed
in the following sections.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HOFSTEDE/GLOBE
I-C DIMENSIONS
In the context of culture research, parallel con-
ceptualization and measurement of I-C and other
dimensions of national culture in the Hofstede and
PY
GLOBE studies raises two important questions: one,
are the relationships among similar dimensions
of national culture identified in these two studies
consistent or anomalous, and two, can we explain
O
these relationships in a way that is theoretically
sound and intuitively appealing? Table 3 shows the
C
correlations between the Hofstede Work-orienta-
tion dimension and the two GLOBE Institutional
Collectivism and Family Collectivism dimensions
across both practices and values.
As shown in Table 3, of the four correlations
between Hofstede and GLOBE, two are strongly
significant: Hofstede’s Work-orientation has a sig-
nificant positive relationship with GLOBE Family
Collectivism practices (r¼0.76, po0.01) and with
Institutional Collectivism values (r¼0.52, po0.01).
Prima facie, both these results seem consistent with
our expectation. However, on closer examination,
the situation is more complex, as explained below.
Hofstede Work-Orientation and GLOBE Family
Collectivism Practices (r¼0.76, po0.01)2
Hofstede’s Work-orientation is a measure of values,
not practices. In Hofstede’s surveys, the answers to
his items are in response to the following preamble
(Hofstede, 1980: 419): “Please think of an ideal job,
disregarding your present job. In choosing an ideal
job, how important would it be to you toy” The
wording seeks to explore the preferences of respon-
dents, just as GLOBE’s values questions do. But,
surprisingly, there is a strong positive correlation
between Hofstede’s Work-orientation values and
GLOBE Family Collectivism practices (r¼0.76,
po0.01, see Table 3). While GLOBE considers this
provides “substantial convergent validity” (Gelfand
et al., 2004: 475), in our view it would be remiss to
 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
441

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations for Hofstede and GLOBE Individualism–Collectivism scores

Min. Max Mean Median s.d. Correlations

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

a
(1) Hofstede Collectivism (Work-orientation) 6 91 45.32 40 24.87 1
(2) GLOBE Institutional Collectivism practices 3.25 5.22 4.26 4.28 0.45 0.10 1
(3) GLOBE Institutional Collectivism values 3.89 5.65 4.79 4.84 0.50 0.52** 0.69** 1
(4) GLOBE In-group (Family) Collectivism practices 3.53 6.36 5.11 5.40 0.74 0.76** 0.23 0.52** 1
(5) GLOBE In-group (Family) Collectivism values 4.94 6.52 5.68 5.73 0.36 0.22 0.18 0.26 0.23 1
a
Hofstede’s descriptive statistics are for the Individualism pole, correlations are with the Collectivism pole.
n¼52 countries common between Hofstede and GLOBE studies.
*po0.05, **po0.01 (two-tailed).

simply accept the strong positive correlation as an Baker, 2000: 22). Therefore, following the Maslow/
expected result. In fact, there is reason to expect a Inglehart argument, rich countries are expected to
significant negative correlation between Hofstede’s have a low level of Hofstede’s Work-orientation

Work-orientation values and GLOBE Family Col-
lectivism practices, because practices and values
across seven of GLOBE’s nine dimensions are
significantly negative, whereas one relationship is
non-significant and only one other is marginally
positive (r¼0.32, po0.10). Thus to the extent that
C
Hofstede values and GLOBE practices are related,
following GLOBE, they could be expected to be
negatively related. We believe that the relationship
R
PY
values. On the other hand, we note that rich
countries have low GLOBE Family Collectivism
practices (see Table 1), since parents and children
can afford to live separately, and these living
O
arrangements are the basis of two of the four
GLOBE items. Hence the strongly significant posi-
tive relationship between Hofstede’s Work-orienta-
tion values and GLOBE’s Family Collectivism
practices should be expected, since rich countries

can be understood if we take the view that both score low (and poor countries score high) on both
O

dimensions are driven by a third factor, in this case, these dimensions. Thus the relationship is likely
economic prosperity or a lack of it, as explained driven largely by country wealth.
below.
TH

We know that people living in rich countries tend Hofstede Work-Orientation and GLOBE
to be more individualistic in their outlook than Institutional Collectivism Values (r¼0.52, po0.01)
those in poorer countries. This has been shown by The second, significant positive relationship bet-
U

several highly cited research projects over the years. ween Hofstede’s Work-orientation values and
For example, Maslow (1943) shows that people first GLOBE Institutional Collectivism values can also
A

satisfy their lowest-level needs, and then move to
satisfy higher-value needs, such as social status.
When the lower- and middle-level needs have been
met by individuals, their highest goal is to meet
their “self-actualization” needs. These are directed
towards accomplishing deeply held ambitions: “A
musician must make music, an artist must paint, a
poet must write if he is to be ultimately happy”
(Maslow, 1943: 382). Individuals of course can
best meet these needs by being “themselves” and
by not being distracted from self-actualization
through work-orientated objectives. The effect of
the self-actualization theory described by Maslow
is supported by Inglehart and Baker (2000). They
argue that societal development results in people
putting more store by self-expression: “The rise of
post industrial society (OECD countries) leads to a
growing emphasis on self-expression” (Inglehart &
be explained on the basis of economic prosperity.
Poor countries have high levels of Hofstede Work-
orientation values, as they aspire to fulfil their
lower-level physiological and safety needs (Maslow,
1943). With this in mind, looking at Hofstede’s
items (Appendix A), we would expect poor-country
respondents to want more training opportu-
nities to improve skills (Question A9), to want to
improve their (generally poor) working conditions
(for safety) (A12), and to use skills on the job
(to improve low income) (A17), all of which are
positive items for Hofstede’s Work-orientation. On
the other hand, poor countries have higher Institu-
tional Collectivism values (see Table 1), since they
aspire to the prosperity of rich countries, which is
considered to result from high Institutional Col-
lectivism practices (Table 1), such as group loyalty
and group cohesion, that potentially engender

Journal of International Business Studies

 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE
442
efficient and effective teams and organizations.
Based on this logic, a significant positive relation-
ship between Hofstede’s Work-orientation values
and GLOBE Institutional Collectivism values is
warranted, since poor countries are high (and rich
countries are low) on both these dimensions.
WAY FORWARD
Based on our detailed analysis of the items used to
measure the I-C dimensions in Hofstede and
GLOBE, we find, in several instances, little con-
gruence between the construct labels, the defini-
tions of the constructs, and the items used to
measure these constructs. We suggest alternative
plausible labels for the I-C dimensions in Hofstede
and GLOBE that more faithfully represent the items
used in these studies to measure these dimensions.
We believe that Hofstede’s Individualism–Collecti-
vism should be relabelled as Self-orientation vs
Work-orientation, and GLOBE’s In-group Collecti-
vism as Family Collectivism. This enables us to
provide clearer, more precise and logical expla-
nations underlying the significant relationships
between the Hofstede and GLOBE I-C dimensions,
as well as between I-C and other external variables
of interest to researchers, such as national prosper-
R
ity. This understanding also points to the need
O
for researchers to select carefully from the range of
Hofstede/GLOBE I-C scores for future research in
TH
accordance with their real meaning. More specifi-
cally, Hofstede’s “onion diagram” representation of
culture (Hofstede, 2001: 11) views national cultural
practices and values to be in harmony, in which
U
case one could potentially use Hofstede’s I-C
scores to explain differences in national practices
A
or values relating to self-orientation vs work-
orientation or personal vs professional work goals,
rather than Individualism vs Collectivism per se.
On the other hand, since GLOBE distinguishes
between the practices and values dimensions of
culture, it is reasonable to expect the practices
dimensions of culture to be related to phenomena
that capture society’s current practices in Institu-
tional and Family Collectivism, and the values
dimensions of culture to be related with phenom-
ena that reflect the future Institutional and Family
Collectivism goals, aspirations and preferences of
societies.
As regards future research in this field, we see a
need for a reassessment of, at least, the most recent
empirical studies that have used a national level
Collectivism dimension, based on our more exact
interpretation of the Hofstede and GLOBE scores.3
Journal of International Business Studies
Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
Such studies over, say, the last five years in top
international business journals could be reviewed,
substituting our relabelled Collectivism dimen-
sions for the standard Hofstede and/or GLOBE
labels. This reassessment should provide clearer
findings and implications in respect of the variables
examined.
Finally, Tung and Verbeke (2010: 1271), in a
thought-provoking piece on progressing “distance”
studies in international business, discuss a wide range
of important issues that have emerged in recent
times, and challenge scholars to develop “an impec-
cable command of the full y arsenal of instruments
for measuring distance dimensions and providing
distance scores.” We hope we have contributed
something towards this goal in this paper, at least
in respect of cultural distance. However, clearly, more
PY
needs to be done. We see a need for an additional
large-scale, multi-country empirical study on
national culture scores, not to reinvent what has
already been done, but, by careful design, to provide
O
validation or otherwise for the extant national
culture models in respect of their more contentious
C
aspects. This should go some way towards meeting
the challenge of determining which culture scores
“hold up y in terms of validity and reliability” and
which “are most appropriate in the light of the
research questions and context at hand” (Tung &
Verbeke, 2010: 1271).
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.
NOTES
1
In the course of Hofstede’s research, the ques-
tionnaire 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.
2
A serious anomaly between Hofstede and GLOBE is
that the term “family” is included in one of the items
 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE
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.
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
R
dominance theory. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(12): 2471–2493.
O
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
TH
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,
U
behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A
Hofstede, G. 2006. What did GLOBE really measure? Research-
ers’ 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.
Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
443
3
We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this
suggestion.
4
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.
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
PY
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
O
Hofstede–GLOBE debate. Journal of International Business
Studies, 40(3): 527–532.
Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psycholo-
C
gical 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 deve-
lopment 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, ques-
tionnaire limitations and research directions. Journal of Inter-
national 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.
Journal of International Business Studies
 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
444

APPENDIX A

Table A1 Hofstede survey questions for Individualism–Collectivism

Work goals Factor Factor score IBM VSM VSM VSM VSM
loadinga coefficientb surveyc 80d 82e 94f 08g

Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to:
Have challenging work to do – work from which you can get a 0.46 0.12 A5
personal sense of accomplishment
Live in an area desirable to you and your family 0.35 .09 A6 13 I-13
Have an opportunity for high earnings 0.01 A7
Work with people who cooperate well with one another 0.37 0.12 A8 8 5(I-8)
Have training opportunities (to improve your skills or learn 0.82 0.27 A9
new skills)
Have good fringe benefits 0.40 0.14 A10
Get the recognition you deserve when you do a good job 0.05 A11
Have good physical working conditions (good ventilation 0.69 0.22 A12 4 2(I-4) 2
and lighting, adequate work space, etc.)
Have considerable freedom to adapt your own approach 0.49 0.14 A13

PY
to the job
Have the security that you will be able to work for your company 0.04 A14 4 4
as long as you want toh
Have an opportunity for advancement to higher-level jobs 0.08 A15
Have a good working relationship with your manager
Fully use your skills and abilities on the job 0.63 O 0.04
0.20
A16
A17
C
Have a job which leaves you sufficient time for your personal 0.86 0.23 A18 1 1(I-1) 1 1
or family life
Have an element of variety and adventure in the job 8
R

Do work that is interesting 6

Have a job respected by your family and friends 9
O

The entries in columns 4–8 in the table refer to the question numbers in Hofstede’s respective survey instruments.
a
Factor loadings over 0.35 (Hofstede, 2001: 214) (loadings over 0.45 are in bold following Hofstede, 2001: 214).
TH

b
Factor score coefficients from factor analysis of 14 work goals in 40 category 1 countries (Hofstede, 2001: 492).
c
Hofstede (2001: 467–474).
d
Hofstede (1980: 419–422)
e
http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/manual.html.
f
http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/manual.html.
U

g
http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/VSM08English.doc.
h
Wording as originally used in the IBM survey, modified in subsequent surveys.
A

.
APPENDIX B
GLOBE SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALISM–COLLECTIVISM4

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)

Journal of International Business Studies

 Individualism–Collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE Paul Brewer and Sunil Venaik
445

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.

PY
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

O
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)
C
1–35. In this society:
Group cohesion is valued more than individualism – Group cohesion and individualism are equally
R

valued – Individualism is valued more than group cohesion (reverse code)

O

Values.
3–7. I believe that in general, leaders should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer.
TH

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
U

3–36. In this society, most people prefer to play:

A

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)

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Sunil Venaik is a senior lecturer at the UQ Business

Paul Brewer is a senior lecturer at UQ Business
School, University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia. He obtained his PhD in management
at the University of Queensland. His research
interests include internationalization of the firm,
psychic and cultural distance, and the globalization
of business. He was born in Australia and is an
Australian citizen. E-mail: p.brewer@business.uq
.edu.au.
School, the University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia. He obtained his PhD in international
business/marketing strategy from the Australian
Graduate School of Management at the University
of New South Wales, Sydney. His research interests
include national culture, MNE strategy and man-
agement, and the impact of FDI in emerging
markets. Born in India, he is a citizen of Australia
and India. E-mail: s.venaik@business.uq.edu.au.

Accepted by Rosalie Tung, Area Editor, 9 November 2010. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.

Journal of International Business Studies

View publication stats