Individualism vs. Collectivism in the Workplace

In January 2026 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney, took to the stage to declare the old rules-based order broken. In an era of geopolitical rivalry, he warned against defensive “fortress” strategies and urged middle powers to invest in collective resilience instead, suggesting that individualistic approaches are unsustainable in today’s fragmented world. And this tension between individual and collective isn’t just a geopolitical issue – it’s something that also plays out every day inside organisations and workplaces. At its core sits one of the most important cultural value differences: individualism versus collectivism. 

Cultural Divides

Our behavioural preferences – often referred to as our cultural values – begin forming in childhood, and are shaped by the environments and societies we grow up in. These learnings influence how we communicate, collaborate with others, plan, make decisions and ultimately how we define success. 

One of the most significant cultural values distinctions is between individualism and collectivism. While individualism prioritises autonomy, personal achievements and individual rights, collectivism prioritises group harmony, shared responsibilities and interdependence. Neither is inherently better than the other, and both bring their own strengths and risks. But for organisations it’s vital that they learn how to balance them, whilst also navigating the cultural nuances within diverse workforces. 

Individualism at Work

Workplaces focused on personal goals and rights tend to emphasise things like personal accountability and ambition, direct communication and competition as motivation. It can help to drive innovation and creativity for employees. But over-indexing on individualism can create a socially fragmented workplace, with relationships between other employees feeling transactional and short-term. In times of uncertainty, people may prioritise their own personal success over collective stability, building walls between peers and placing less emphasis on long-term relationships. 

Collectivism at Work

Meanwhile, workplaces focused on group goals and relationships tend to emphasise team success, consensus in decision-making, and long-term relationships. These types of cultures often excel in collaboration and shared accountability, building a sense of cohesion and team resilience. However, without space to challenge or engage in healthy debates, this collectivist approach can sometimes limit innovation and suppress individual rights. 

Considering Nuances

It’s incredibly important that we don’t oversimplify the complex debate here. Individualism does not automatically mean direct communication, and collectivism does not mean lack of ambition. We still find that healthy competition exists in collectivist cultures and collaboration thrives in individualistic ones. 

In culturally diverse workplaces, balancing these values becomes more complex too. Western contexts often lean individualistic, whereas many Asian and African contexts tend to be more collectivist. Yet within every society, both value systems coexist.

One example here is employee recognition schemes. In the US, ‘Employee of the Month’ aligns well with cultural norms that place value on standing out. Meanwhile, in many Asian cultures, this can cause feelings of discomfort. One way in which organisations can shift their approach is to reframe this as ‘Team of the Month’ in these regions, which leads to a drastic improvement in engagement. The principle isn’t about removing recognition, but instead about aligning the system with cultural values.  

Striking the Balance

The most effective workplaces integrate both individualist and collectivist perspectives. They find ways to align personal ambition with shared goals, reward individuals within team success, encourage healthy challenges without undermining cohesion. And this is where Carney’s message resonates beyond geopolitics. Just as nations cannot thrive in isolation, organisations cannot succeed if individuals operate in silos. Equally, collective strength cannot come at the expense of personal accountability or innovation. The best environments come from a smart integration of both. 

The Role of Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

Cultural intelligence plays a part in getting this balance right. Leaders who lack cultural intelligence may unintentionally reward one orientation while marginalising another – e.g. through performance frameworks, recognition schemes or promotion criteria. Meanwhile, culturally intelligent leaders are more likely to ask:

• Are we valuing individuals or collaboration?
• Are we allowing dissent while protecting trust?
• Are our systems inclusive of different cultural norms?

When aligned well, individual ambition and collective responsibility reinforce one another. The most culturally intelligent organisations know the answer is not one or the other – but both, intentionally balanced.