Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Etymologically, individualism and collectivism allude to the individual- and collective-centric worldviews and ways of life. When people act to maximize their personal gains, they are referred to as individualists, whereas when people behave to help the community or society, they are referred to as collectivists. These terms have been used by social scientists in much the same way. However, following the work of Geert Hofstede, Harry C. Triandis and his collaborators developed a program of research in the 1980s that led to the terms becoming popular psychological constructs used at the individual as well as cultural levels. At the cultural level the terms individualism and collectivism are used, and cultures are referred to as being individualistic or collectivist. At the individual level the terms idiocentrism and allocentrism are used to denote individualism and collectivism respectively and are thought of as personality types. However, idiocentric people are found in collectivist cultures, and allocentric people are found in individualist cultures. The literature on these constructs has developed further in the last twenty years, and many people have started to refer to these ideas as the theory of individualism and collectivism.

The supporters of the theory of individualism and collectivism find clear antecedents and consequences of these constructs, and they also find this culture theory useful in explaining and predicting human behavior in many social contexts. Measurement instruments for these constructs have been demonstrated to be reliable and valid in many areas of social research. Hundreds of journal articles have been published using these constructs, and much practical application for cross-cultural psychology, communication, marketing, and international management have also been found, making these constructs extremely popular. However, some critics find the empirical evidence wanting. Others have complained about their catchall nature and how researchers use them as residual concepts to explain cultural differences in many social behaviors. Criticism aside, the theory of individualism and collectivism is likely to find many more applications, and here we discuss its value for leadership theory and practice.

Concept of Self and Leadership

The core of individualism and collectivism lies in the concept of self. It is generally accepted that in individualist cultures people view themselves as having an independent concept of self, whereas in collectivist cultures people view themselves as having an interdependent concept of self. An individualist's concept of self does not include other people, roles, situations, or elements of nature. On the other hand, a collectivist's concept of self includes other members of family, friends, people from the workplace, and even elements of nature. People in Western countries like the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and Germany, have an independent concept of self, and they feel a more pronounced social distance between themselves and others, including the immediate family. People in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere have an interdependent concept of self, and social distance between an individual and his or her parents, spouse, siblings, children, friends, neighbors, supervisors, subordinates, and so forth is small.

Concept of self can be viewed as digital or analogue: digital for individualists and analogue for collectivists. When individualists think of themselves and others, they are clear that their self only includes themselves. “This is me, but that is not me. My mother is not a part of me. My child is not a part of me. They are separate from me.” There is no overlap between their selves and others. In other words their view of themselves is digital. On the other hand, when collectivists think of people in their family (e.g., parents, spouse, children, siblings, and so forth), they feel these people are a part of their selves. For example, one's thinking may proceed like this: “My father is a part of me, not completely me, but somewhat a part of me. My child is a bigger part of me compared to my father, not completely me, but, yes, a good part of me.” The same feeling holds in case of other relatives, friends, and even neighbors. Thus, they have an analogue self. Of course, the biological self is digital for individualists as well as collectivists. It is the socially constructed self that is digital or analogue.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading