Tipping Towards Individualism

A German researcher, Hofstede has a framework that helps classify national culture. The model was designed for IBM.

At that time, IBM was pursuing international expansion and needed to understand how people of a certain country should be approached.

Since its first presentation in 1980, the model remains the most robust framework for defining national culture. Initially, Hofstede provided 4 dimensions against which a country's national culture could be rated. Quite an incredible feat to reduce a nation to 4 dimensions.

Even after expanding to 6 dimensions, the model still faces criticism. But then, are not all models simplistic?

National Culture

National culture is how collectively the people of a nation behave - their values and beliefs that shape their way of life.

One of the dimensions of Hofstede's model is called individualism versus collectiveness. A country’s people can either lean toward individualism or collectiveness.

Individualism/collectiveness measures how strong the I or We is. That is the extent to which a person sees themselves as an autonomous agent (individualism) versus a member of a community (collectivism).

Countries that rank high in individualism include the UK, the US, New Zealand, and Germany – most of the developed Western nations.

The richer a nation is, the less likely its people are to be collective. However, this is not cast in stone. For example, despite being the fourth-richest nation, Japan ranks high in collectivism.

Most Asian and African countries tend to be collectivist.

Pay attention to the second cluster, which is individualism.

Countries compared are Angola, Kenya, Malaysia, and South Africa. The shorter the column, the less individualistic that country is.

The other dimensions are also shown. You can compare other countries here. It is fun, try it!

Rise of Individualism

While individualism is not necessarily linked to growing wealth and some rich countries do rank high in collectivism; the rise in economic and social development has increased individualism all over the globe.

This makes sense.

The richer you are, the more capacity you have to pursue personal goals.

Sometimes at the expense of the goals of your community. Ex-communication is no longer an issue because one can find another community.

In times of peace, it is hard to sacrifice the needs of the individual to, for lack of a better word, "preserve the community".

This is perhaps why collaboration is alien to the modern human being. Becoming part of a group means giving up personal freedoms.

However, the promised gains of sustained collectivism – stability, low levels of loneliness, and friends – are not as attractive as the present gains of personal freedom inherent to an individualistic lifestyle.

In my experience, the poorest communities tend to be the most collective.

The higher up the social and economic ladder, the lower the inability to tolerate the inconvenience that comes with being part of a group.

In Conclusion?

I am neither team individualistic nor collectivist. And if I were to choose a team, it’d be a moot point. What is happening are social dynamics far beyond my pay grade.

Intentional collaboration can be a game changer. Whether in farming or any other business.

On the other hand, intentional collaboration can be a killer sword. The “I don’t need you” (which is true) can make some irresponsible in their unions, which can be costly to other team members.