No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an updated and authoritative measure of individualism vs collectivism (IDV-COLL) as a dimension of national culture. Design/methodology/approach Rather than focus solely on Hofstede’s classic work, the authors review the main nation-level studies of IDV-COLL and related constructs to identify the salient cultural differences between rich societies and developing nations. The authors conceptualize and operationalize IDV-COLL on the basis of those differences and propose a new national IDV-COLL index, using new data from large probabilistic samples: 52,974 respondents from 56 countries, adequately representing the national cultures of all inhabited continents. Findings The proposed index is a new, valid measure of IDV-COLL as it is strongly correlated with previous measures of closely associated constructs. As a predictor of important cultural differences that can be expected to be associated with IDV-COLL, it performs better (yields higher correlations) than any known measure of IDV-COLL or a related construct. Research limitations/implications An important facet of IDV-COLL – in-group favoritism vs out-group neglect or exclusionism – does not transpire convincingly from the authors’ operationalization of IDV-COLL. The study relies on self-construals. Respondents are unlikely to construe their selves in terms of such concepts. Practical implications The new IDV-COLL measure can be used as a reliable, up-to-date national index in studies that compare the cultures of rich and developing nations. The new IDV-COLL scale, consisting of only seven items, can be easily used in future studies. Originality/value This is the first IDV-COLL measure based on the communalities of previous studies in this domain and derived from large probabilistic samples that approach national representativeness. The superior predictive properties of the authors’ new measure with respect to extraneous variables are another important strength and contribution.

PurposeThe purpose of the paper is to provide a mature reflection upon the work of Hofstede by tracking various subtleties in the evolution of his thought and dispelling prevalent misconceptions.Design/methodology/approachThe goal of the paper is achieved by analyzing Hofstede's output from 1970 to the present day in parallel with contemporary research and criticism.FindingsThe paper arrives at the conclusion that the recent expansion and update of Hofstede's doctrine is indebted to the original groundbreaking work of the 1970s yet a key strength of Hofstede's work has been its ability to adapt and remain progressive.Originality/valueThe paper offers insights into the evolution of Hofstede's doctrines.

Purpose Hofstede’s model of national culture has enjoyed enormous popularity but rests partly on faith. It has never been fully replicated and its predictive properties have been challenged. The purpose of this paper is to provide a test of the model’s coherence and utility. Design/methodology/approach Analyses of secondary data, including the World Values Survey, and a new survey across 56 countries represented by nearly 53,000 probabilistically selected respondents. Findings Improved operationalizations of individualism-collectivism (IDV-COLL) suggest it is a robust dimension of national culture. A modern IDV-COLL index supersedes Hofstede’s 50 year-old original one. Power distance (PD) seems to be a logical facet of IDV-COLL, rather than an independent dimension. Uncertainty avoidance (UA) lacks internal reliability. Approval of restrictive societal rules and laws is a facet of COLL and is not associated with national anxiety or neuroticism. UA is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: importance of job security, preference for a safe job, trust, racism and xenophobia, subjective well-being, innovation, and economic freedom. The dimension of masculinity-femininity (MAS-FEM) lacks coherence. MAS and FEM job goals and broader values are correlated positively, not negatively, and are not related to the MAS-FEM index. MAS-FEM is not a predictor of any of its presumed main correlates: achievement and competition orientation, help and compassion, preference for a workplace with likeable people, work orientation, religiousness, gender egalitarianism, foreign aid. After a radical reconceptualization and a new operationalization, the so-called “fifth dimension” (CWD or long-term orientation) becomes more coherent and useful. The new version, called flexibility-monumentalism (FLX-MON), explains the cultural differences between East Asian Confucian societies at one extreme and Latin America plus Africa at the other, and is the best predictor of national differences in educational achievement. Research limitations/implications Differences between subsidiaries of a multinational company, such as IBM around 1970, are not necessarily a good source of knowledge about broad cultural differences. A model of national culture must be validated across a large number of countries from all continents and its predictions should withstand various plausible controls. Much of Hofstede’s model (UA, MAS-FEM) fails this test while the remaining part (IDV-COLL, PD, LTO) needs a serious revision. Practical implications Consultancies and business schools still teach Hofstede’s model uncritically. They need to be aware of its deficiencies. Originality/value As UA and MAS-FEM are apparently misleading artifacts of Hofstede’s IBM data set, a thorough revision of Hofstede’s model is proposed, reducing it to two dimensions: IDV-COLL and FLX-MON.