The dimension of individualism‐collectivism, as identified by Hofstede (1980), was studied using items developed both theoretically and emically in nine diverse cultures. The dimension was found to be analysable into four stable etic factors: Individualism had two aspects (Separation from Ingroups and Self‐Reliance with Hedonism) and collectivism had two aspects (Family Integrity and Interdependence with Sociability). These four factors are orthogonal to each other. The location of nine cultures on these four factors was used to compute a “collectivism” score which correlated r = + · 73 with Hofstede's (1980) collectivism scores for the nine cultures. This approach enables the measurement of individualism‐collectivism in each culture as well as across cultures, and shows that different methods for measuring individualism‐collectivism converge.

The Model of Culture Fit postulates that the sociocultural environment affects the internal work culture, which in turn influences human resource management practices. This model was tested by two independent cross-cultural studies comparing Indian and Canadian managers and employees. In assessing sociocultural environment and internal work culture, the “participant” technique was used in Study 1 (the respondents indicated their own beliefs and assumptions), and the “observant” technique was used in Study 2 (the respondents indicated beliefs and assumptions of the majority of individuals in society). In both studies, India scored higher than Canada on paternalism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, loyalty toward community, reactivity, and futuristic orientation. Indian employees reported having less enriched jobs than did Canadian employees. Mediated multiple regression analyses supported the Model of Culture Fit. Results suggest that the paternalism, self-reliance, and employee participation constructs merit further exploration, as does participant methodology.

Collectivism and individualism are cultural syndromes that have some common cores. Allocentrism and idiocentrism are constructs at the individual level that correspond to collectivism and individualism respectively at the cultural level. In two studies, the first with American (from Illinois) and the second with Japanese subjects, we examined the best way to measure these common cores. We also present the recommended items in two appendices, and provide information about the reliability and convergent validity of the items in these appendices. Finally, we tested the hypothesis that women will be more allocentric than men. We obtained only directional support in the US but fairly good support of this hypothesis in Japan.

An analysis of the responses of 1,614 subjects from 10 cultures shows that the Leung Bond procedure provides illuminating ways of extracting both strong (Separation From In-Groups, Independence, and Personal Competence) and weak (Task Orientation) eticsrelevant to individualism, and weak etics (Dependence on Others, Sociability) relevant to collectivism. Additional richness in the available information is provided when intracultural factor analyses are carried out in each culture. It appears that the most complete picture is obtained when both etics and emics are examined.

A sample of 292 respondents, drawn from three locations, participated in a study designed to examine the effects of eighteen situations on the choice of collectivist and individualist behaviour and intentions, or their combinations. The findings indicated that concerns for family or family members evoked a purely collectivist behaviour. Compelling and urgent personal needs and goals in conflict with the interests of family or friends led to a mix of individualist and collectivist behaviour and intentions. Individualist behaviour intended to serve collectivist interests was the third most frequently opted choice. Respondents' education had a significant effect and other background variables had indeterminate effects on the choice of either purely collectivist or a mix of collectivist and individualist behaviour and intentions. Coexistence of collectivism and individualismDespite this evidence, there are still doubts about Indians' unequivocal nature of collectivism. In the classical study by Hofstede (1980), India's score of 48 on a 100-point scale of collectivism-individualism indicated only a slight tilt towards collectivism. Sinha