Communicating knowledge in collectivist and individualist cultures

Knowledge, communication, and technology in collectivist and individualist cultures

Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory distinguishing between collectivist and individualist cultures
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory includes the distinction between collectivist and individualist cultures. Individualism, in contrast to collectivism, refers to cultures with less tightly united in-groups that aren’t sharply separated from out-groups. [Image source: Piotrus, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons]

Communicating tacit and explicit knowledge through technology

Previously, I’ve written about the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge, as well as its application to information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as email or video calls. To briefly recap:

  • Explicit knowledge refers to information that’s easy to put into words—for example, clear-cut facts or step-by-step instructions.
  • Tacit knowledge refers to hands-on skill that’s not as easy to put into words, because it strongly depends on personal experience and social presence—for instance, public speaking or managing a team.

Accordingly, different types of technologies are better suited for communicating these two kinds of knowledge:

  • For simple messages that are easy to verbalize (explicit knowledge), email or instant messaging should suffice (assuming its written well).
  • For hands-on insights that are difficult to verbalize (tacit knowledge), an audio or video call may be a better way to communicate.

However, there’s another way to think about communicating tacit and explicit knowledge: in terms of collectivist and individualist cultures.

Defining collectivist and individualist cultures

Collectivist and individualist cultures refer to how tightly people are united by the groups they belong to—in-groups—and, in turn, separated from groups they don’t belong to—out-groups. This distinction comes from a model in anthropology known as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (named after psychologist Geert Hofstede).

However, it’s important to keep in mind the following nuance. This distinction is not absolute but comparative. In other words, no single culture is categorically collectivist or individualist. Nevertheless, one culture may be more collectivist or individualist compared to another. With that nuance in mind, let’s specify what these terms mean:

  • In collectivist cultures, people are more tightly united within in-groups—and thus more sharply separated from out-groups. As a result, the boundaries between groups are typically rigid, and there’s more social conformity with respect to in-group norms. There’s a compelling need to fit into one’s own group and follow the crowd. In short, communal needs take precedence over personal needs.
  • In individualist cultures, people are less tightly united within in-groups—and not as sharply separated from out-groups. Consequently, there’s more openness to cultural exchanges between groups, and there’s higher individual rebellion against in-group norms. The desire to express one’s own uniqueness, despite what the crowd says, carries much value. Simply put, personal needs take precedence over communal needs.

To illustrate, anthropologists have compared various cultures from both East and West. The general finding is that many Western cultures, such as parts of Europe, the Americas, and Africa, tend to be more individualist. In contrast, many Eastern cultures, such as parts of Asia, tend to be more collectivist. (See graph above.)

Communicating knowledge across collectivist and individualist cultures

Interestingly, this cultural difference has practical implications for how many of us communicate knowledge in cross-cultural contexts:

  • The more collectivist a culture is, the more its members tend to communicate knowledge indirectly, implicitly, or tacitly—for example, using nonverbal gestures, facial expressions, and tone of voice, as well as relying on formal social cues. (Sometimes, this kind of communication goes by the name of “high context,” because you need additional context to understand it.)
  • The more individualist a culture is, the more its members tend to communicate knowledge directly or explicitly—for instance, stating one’s message in an overt and informal way. (Sometime, this kind of communication is called “low context,” because you don’t need as much context to understand it.)

For example, in the study of cross-cultural communication between individualist cultures like the United States and collectivist cultures like China, it’s generally the case that Americans use more direct, explicit, and informal styles of communication, whereas Chinese use more indirect, implicit, and formal communication styles (Yating, 2022).

In sum, there will be a higher likelihood of communicating tacit knowledge in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures. Likewise, there will be a higher likelihood of communicating explicit knowledge in individualist cultures than in collectivist cultures (Ismail, 2012).

Of course, this cultural difference is an important factor to consider when communicating across different cultures in our high-tech society today, especially since different technologies may be better suited for communicating either tacit knowledge (like video calls) or explicit knowledge (like email).

Why do collectivist and individualist cultures exist?

Before wrapping up this topic, there’s something I’ve often wondered. Why would some cultures tend to be more collectivist and others more individualist? Is this cultural difference just arbitrary. Is it merely due to chance? Or is there a natural cause for it?

As it turns out, there’s an epidemiological reason for whether cultures lean more toward collectivism or individualism. A significant factor has to do with the extent to which pathogens have occurred in the environment (Fincher et al., 2008). Here’s why:

  • When more pathogens have occurred in an environment, cultures in that geographic region tend to be more collectivist. After all, when groups have more rigid boundaries and rules, there’s less intergroup mixing. Hence, there are fewer opportunities to spread diseases.
  • When fewer pathogens have occurred in an environment, cultures in that geographic region tend to be more individualist. That’s because when boundaries and rules are more loosely defined among groups, intergroup mixing is likely to be more common. In this context, hygienic concerns about the potential to spread diseases aren’t as worrying.

As evolutionary psychologist Gad Saad summarized in his book, The Consuming Instinct:

“collectivism is a cultural adaptation to a greater likelihood of being exposed to pathogens” (2011, p 195).

References

Fincher, Corey L., Thornhill, Randy, Murray, Damian R., and Schaller, Mark. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275(1640), 1279-85. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0094

Ismail, K. M. (2012). Theorizing on the role of individualism-collectivism in tacit knowledge transfer between agents in international alliances. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 71-85. https://doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2012010104

Saad, Gad. (2011). The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal about Human Nature. New York: Prometheus Books. Read summary: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-14420-000

Yating, Wang. (2022). A Comparative Study of Communication Styles between China and America. Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(5), 91-101. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2022.050514

Leave a Comment