Reflection about Hofstede’s Individualism vs Collectivism

Individualism and Collectivism

Overview

    The dichotomy of individualism and collectivism in a society concerns the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. Individualist societies are characterized by low interdependence, whereas collectivist societies are characterized by high interdependence. Geert Hofstede states that those in individualist cultures identify with an "I" identity, and those in collectivist cultures identify with a "We" identity (10 minutes with, 2014). For example, Denmark is one of the most individualist societies with a score of 89, and Kenya is one of the most collectivist societies with a score of 4 (The Culture Factor Group, 2025).

Similarities and Differences Between Japan and Canada (With a remark on the United States' surprisingly low score)

    Hofstede's data suggest that Canada is a relatively individualistic country; it is described as a "loosely-knit society." Despite Canada being "loosely-knit," it maintains high reciprocity between individuals. It may not be the case that individuals in Canada are committed to their community, but they certainly respect the members of their community and are cordial toward them. Japan is less individualistic, but not as much as stereotypes would lead one to believe. The slightly lower score may be due to loyalty being greatly valued in Japanese society, thus people hold strong commitments to those around them who they interact with professionally and casually.

    In school, one can observe Japan's collectivism in teaching the students to clean together, working as a team to maintain the orderliness of the class. In Canada, students instead have a responsibility to keep their individual spaces clean, such as their desks or cubbies. Small habits like these may affect the degree to which members feel an obligation to their society or themselves. In both cases, the students learn about responsibility, what differs is the why behind that responsibility. In Japan, it may be a responsibility to the well-being of the group, whereas in Canada, it may be a responsibility to the well-being of the self.

    Surprisingly, the United States, my neighbouring country, scores lower than both Canada and Japan on individualism. This is supposedly the result of the United States being home to various cultures, causing the results to be influenced by people with different societal backgrounds (The Culture Factor Group, 2025). However, Canada is also home to various cultures, yet we do not see such a low score in this category. Results like these, which defy expectations, raise questions regarding why such discrepancies exist.

Should Hofstede's Data be Trusted?

    Upon learning about Hofstede's cultural dimensions, and partaking in the global survey he administered to IBM employees, I have become increasingly dissatisfied with his methodology. My main concern relates to the survey's prompts and how they are worded. In what follows, I will briefly go over some of the survey prompts from the corresponding lesson's in-class discussion activity, explaining why they are poorly framed. Doing so may help to explain why certain countries' scores on specific dimensions are counterintuitive, like the United States.

    Question two presents a troubling dichotomy where one must choose via a Likert Scale whether they feel most comfortable where "there is togetherness and social control" or where "there is loneliness and freedom." There are issues with this dichotomy. Social control is not the opposite of freedom; unfreedom is the opposite of freedom. Social control (laws, social contracts, etc.) is also a necessary condition for a free society, lest that freedom be Hobbesian in nature. Secondly, loneliness is connotatively-negative. The first definition of "lonely" is as an adjective which describes the state of being "sad because one has no friends or company." Few would feel "most comfortable" in a lonesome environment given that humans are social animals. Put simply, this prompt is semantically ambiguous and may encourage certain responses as opposed to others.

    Question four is also highly subject to interpretation based on definitions being left ambiguous. One must choose whether one feels most comfortable where "people are promoted on the basis of loyalty and seniority" or where "people are promoted on the basis of excellence irrespective of age." I would argue most people, when considering what constitutes excellence, may instinctively include qualities such as loyalty. Additionally, when considering seniority, a degree of excellence is automatically gained through experience. Since both of these overlap, a quantitative Likert scale becomes so simplistic that it renders its results practically meaningless.

    Lastly, question five offers a moral problem, though fails to provide the context needed to properly analyze the situation. One must choose whether they feel most comfortable where "it is seen as immoral if a boss does not use his power to give a job to a relative in need" or where "it is seen as immoral to give a job to a relative in need." What does one define as a need? What qualities does the individual getting the job possess? Is this relative completely incompetent, or very competent and a hard worker and merely happens to be connected to the boss? Likewise, given that one must answer via a Likert scale, the results of this prompt are practically useless, as it forces the respondent to contextualize the prompt, implanting their own, non-universal assumptions, into the question.

    One may claim such criticisms are pedantic, though I would retort, asserting that such a criticism undermines the rigorous nature which must be upheld in academia. Furthermore, my criticisms are not unique. Weil (2017) highlights how Hofstede's questionnaire "was not even originally developed to explore cultural values but instead to assess job satisfaction within IBM" (p. 93). Research by Wu (2006) further suggests that cultural values can change over time, thus, "many cultural theories should be updated and re-evaluated periodically" (p. 41). Put simply, many of Hofstede's survey questions seem to necessitate that the respondent fill in various contextual or semantic blanks.

Conclusion

    A society being individualist or collectivist is an important factor in determining how a society's individuals interact and relate to one another. Canada and Japan are both more individualistic than they are collectivist, though Japan is more collectivist than Canada. In this reflection I have also put forth some criticisms of Hofstede's research. This does not mean that the dimensions are necessarily conceptually flawed, just that the methods of data collection may be subject to erroneous results which do not truly reflect respondents' preferences. The subject nonetheless remains interesting and the six dimensions proposed by Hofstede can provide insights to support more thorough cross-cultural comparisons.

References

10 minutes with. (2014, November 18). 10 minutes with Geert Hofstede on individualism versus collectivism [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS2HRT6SyI4

The Culture Factor Group. (2025). Country comparison tool. https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool

Weil, N. (2017). Speaking of culture. Utah State University. LibreTexts.

Wu, M. (2006). Hofstede's cultural dimensions 30 years later: A study of Taiwan and the United States. Intercultural communication studies, 15(1), 33.