UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Human Sciences | Department of Communication Science
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
DPR2604: Communicating in a Global Context
Assessment 3 | 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
DPR2604
Module Code:
Communicating in a Global Context
Module Name:
Assessment 3 (Examination)
Assessment Type:
3
Assessment Number:
22 October 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for Communicating in a Global Context, UNISA 2026
,UNISA | DPR2604 Assessment 3
Question 1: Culture and Intercultural Communication
1.1 Individualism and collectivism in the workplace
1.1 Differentiate between individualism and collectivism and discuss how each can influ-
ence teamwork in the workplace.
Differentiating the two dimensions
Individualism and collectivism describe how a culture positions the person in relation to the
group (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). In an individualist culture the ties between peo-
ple are loose; each person is expected to look after themselves and their immediate family,
and identity is built on personal achievement, rights and choice. Collectivist societies, by con-
trast, integrate people from birth into strong, cohesive in-groups such as extended families,
clans and communities, which offer protection in exchange for lasting loyalty (Hofstede et al.,
2010; Triandis, 1995).
Table 1: Individualism compared with collectivism
Aspect Individualism Collectivism
Identity “I”, defined by personal traits and “We”, defined by group member-
achievements ship
Primary loyalty Self and nuclear family Extended family and in-group
Communication Direct, explicit, low-context Indirect, implicit, high-context,
face-saving
Decision-making Individual initiative, majority vote Consensus and group harmony
Reward Individual merit and performance Group performance and loyalty
Influence on teamwork
In individualist workplaces, teams are assembled around tasks and skills. Members are ex-
pected to state opinions openly, to challenge ideas and to carry personal accountability for
their contribution. This encourages initiative and clear responsibility, but it can weaken cohe-
sion and promote internal competition when rewards are tied only to individual results (Hof-
stede et al., 2010). Earley (1989) found that the loafing which tends to occur when individu-
als work in groups was lower among participants from a collectivist background working in in-
group settings, which indicates that group identity strengthens commitment to shared effort.
In collectivist workplaces the team functions as an in-group. Members support one another,
Page 2 of 22
, UNISA | DPR2604 Assessment 3
subordinate personal ambition to group goals and prefer consensus, which builds loyalty and
cohesion. The costs are slower decisions, reluctance to disagree with seniors or to give neg-
ative feedback, the risk of groupthink, and favouritism toward in-group members (Hofstede
et al., 2010). The Southern African philosophy of ubuntu, summed up as “a person is a per-
son through other persons”, reflects this collectivist orientation and is often invoked in South
African teamwork and management (Mbigi and Maree, 1995). A manager leading a multicul-
tural South African team therefore needs to set explicit norms on how disagreement is voiced
and how credit is shared, so that neither orientation silences the other.
1.2 Masculinity versus femininity and business practices
1.2 Describe the dimensions, masculinity versus femininity, and explain how they might
shape business practices.
Describing the dimension
Hofstede’s masculinity versus femininity dimension concerns the distribution of emotional
roles and values between the genders in a society (Hofstede et al., 2010). Masculine cultures
value assertiveness, competition, achievement, ambition and material success, and their gen-
der roles are clearly distinct; feminine cultures value modesty, cooperation, caring, relation-
ships and quality of life, and their gender roles overlap. The terms describe societal values and
not the characteristics of individual men and women.
Shaping business practices
• Management and decision-making. Masculine cultures such as Japan favour decisive, as-
sertive leadership and ambitious targets, while feminine cultures such as Sweden favour
intuition, consultation and consensus (Hofstede et al., 2010).
• Conflict resolution. Masculine business cultures tend to settle disagreements by competi-
tion and “fighting it out”, whereas feminine ones prefer compromise and negotiation.
• Rewards and human resources. Masculine workplaces stress performance-based pay,
promotion and recognition of achievement. Feminine workplaces stress equality, flexible
hours, job security and solidarity.
• Work–life balance. Masculine cultures lean toward “living to work” and long hours; femi-
nine cultures lean toward “working to live” and protect family and leisure time.
Page 3 of 22
College of Human Sciences | Department of Communication Science
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
DPR2604: Communicating in a Global Context
Assessment 3 | 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
DPR2604
Module Code:
Communicating in a Global Context
Module Name:
Assessment 3 (Examination)
Assessment Type:
3
Assessment Number:
22 October 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for Communicating in a Global Context, UNISA 2026
,UNISA | DPR2604 Assessment 3
Question 1: Culture and Intercultural Communication
1.1 Individualism and collectivism in the workplace
1.1 Differentiate between individualism and collectivism and discuss how each can influ-
ence teamwork in the workplace.
Differentiating the two dimensions
Individualism and collectivism describe how a culture positions the person in relation to the
group (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). In an individualist culture the ties between peo-
ple are loose; each person is expected to look after themselves and their immediate family,
and identity is built on personal achievement, rights and choice. Collectivist societies, by con-
trast, integrate people from birth into strong, cohesive in-groups such as extended families,
clans and communities, which offer protection in exchange for lasting loyalty (Hofstede et al.,
2010; Triandis, 1995).
Table 1: Individualism compared with collectivism
Aspect Individualism Collectivism
Identity “I”, defined by personal traits and “We”, defined by group member-
achievements ship
Primary loyalty Self and nuclear family Extended family and in-group
Communication Direct, explicit, low-context Indirect, implicit, high-context,
face-saving
Decision-making Individual initiative, majority vote Consensus and group harmony
Reward Individual merit and performance Group performance and loyalty
Influence on teamwork
In individualist workplaces, teams are assembled around tasks and skills. Members are ex-
pected to state opinions openly, to challenge ideas and to carry personal accountability for
their contribution. This encourages initiative and clear responsibility, but it can weaken cohe-
sion and promote internal competition when rewards are tied only to individual results (Hof-
stede et al., 2010). Earley (1989) found that the loafing which tends to occur when individu-
als work in groups was lower among participants from a collectivist background working in in-
group settings, which indicates that group identity strengthens commitment to shared effort.
In collectivist workplaces the team functions as an in-group. Members support one another,
Page 2 of 22
, UNISA | DPR2604 Assessment 3
subordinate personal ambition to group goals and prefer consensus, which builds loyalty and
cohesion. The costs are slower decisions, reluctance to disagree with seniors or to give neg-
ative feedback, the risk of groupthink, and favouritism toward in-group members (Hofstede
et al., 2010). The Southern African philosophy of ubuntu, summed up as “a person is a per-
son through other persons”, reflects this collectivist orientation and is often invoked in South
African teamwork and management (Mbigi and Maree, 1995). A manager leading a multicul-
tural South African team therefore needs to set explicit norms on how disagreement is voiced
and how credit is shared, so that neither orientation silences the other.
1.2 Masculinity versus femininity and business practices
1.2 Describe the dimensions, masculinity versus femininity, and explain how they might
shape business practices.
Describing the dimension
Hofstede’s masculinity versus femininity dimension concerns the distribution of emotional
roles and values between the genders in a society (Hofstede et al., 2010). Masculine cultures
value assertiveness, competition, achievement, ambition and material success, and their gen-
der roles are clearly distinct; feminine cultures value modesty, cooperation, caring, relation-
ships and quality of life, and their gender roles overlap. The terms describe societal values and
not the characteristics of individual men and women.
Shaping business practices
• Management and decision-making. Masculine cultures such as Japan favour decisive, as-
sertive leadership and ambitious targets, while feminine cultures such as Sweden favour
intuition, consultation and consensus (Hofstede et al., 2010).
• Conflict resolution. Masculine business cultures tend to settle disagreements by competi-
tion and “fighting it out”, whereas feminine ones prefer compromise and negotiation.
• Rewards and human resources. Masculine workplaces stress performance-based pay,
promotion and recognition of achievement. Feminine workplaces stress equality, flexible
hours, job security and solidarity.
• Work–life balance. Masculine cultures lean toward “living to work” and long hours; femi-
nine cultures lean toward “working to live” and protect family and leisure time.
Page 3 of 22
