Hofstede Cultural Difference Critiques Essay

Arguably, Hofstedes release (1980, 1997) re postures a pi iodinenessering antenna of socialization as a way of comparing intertheme attention fabrics. First of exclusively, prior to offering any evaluations in regards to McSweeneys upbraiding (2002a/b), it is crucial to identify the nature of Hostedes pull in at heart the perfect sphere of the gardening come on itself.In contrast to the guarantors of the emic glide path , whose important concepts tend to discard the equalization and standardization of dimensions in theme cultures comparisons, the pillars of Hofstedes work, which belong to the etic approach , ar based on 5 dimensions whereby case differences are then posterd. In former(a) words, from the emic standpoint it is also arguable that the etic query methodology, as aiming to identify equalities among national differences, would risk throwing out the nestling with the bath water .On the diametric hand, from the emic perspective, dividing the culture int o a set of defined scopes stands as the only way to actually enable look intoers to analyse cultures . Having briefly introduced the shortcomings related to both approaches, McSweeneys critiques can now be narrowed down to a specific scope, which is mainly encompassed with Hofstedes research methodology.Research ValidityIn light of the importance for any researches to get out clear definitions on the specific research concepts and key words, the initial fork of this essay will evolve on contextualizing the meaning of culture within Hofstedes work, thus, giving ground to McSweeneys relevant sources of chiding. Geert (1980) has defined culture as the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from an new(prenominal). McSweeney essentially critiques Hofstedes assimilateion of nations as means of pagan comparisons, scorning the territoriality uniqueness of culture in primis.In regards to this issue, Hofstede in a second st age (2002 1356) acknowledges that nations are not the ideal elements for studying cultures, yet this is the only way researchers could have access to comparable units. Predictably, thousands of other authors contributions in regards to the definition of culture would make this inclination even more complex. For the sake of this analysis, emphasis would be grantn to the rivalrys in regards to the research methodology. Research Reliability Research Sample The first criticism which may arise is ilkly to involve the representativeness of Hofstedes research savour.In more details, he argues that 117,000 questionnaires for two surveys, coering 66 countries would be large to ensure the research dependability. From my point of view, McSweeneys critiques result showed when analysing the sampling framework in more details. CountryNumber of Respondents for Each Country Belgium, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan and Sweden (6 countries)More than megabyte Chile, Columbia, Greece, Ho ng Kong, Iran, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Turkey (15 countries)Less than 200 Tab. 1 As it can be seen by the table (Tab. ), in 15 countries the sample size is composed by less than 200 respondents, which results to be passing small compared to other countries with over 1000 respondents. To couple this argument, McSweeney discusses about the narrowness of the creation surveyed as respondents were all IBM employees, mainly involved with the marketing and sales departments. Hofstedes reply (2002), stating that this samples framework had only been used in order to seize the national culture differences from both the organizational and occupational culture, seems however to give rise to other arguments.As McSweeneys (2002a 95-99) argues, respondents cultural framework is do up by three non-interacting and durable levels of culture (Tab. 2). At the first level, the assumptions which would free this model from any shortcom ings would be that in that respect is only one IBM culture and that there is also a common worldwide occupational culture for each job (Hofstede 1980a 181). What are these assumptions based on? agree to McSweeney (2002a 96), these assumptions are too crude and implausible to underpin Hofstedes stressed empirical claims .Following the thread of his argument we come across a situation where assuming that an IBM employee, whether in a developed USA offer section or a new opened branch office in Pakistan, will possess the same identical organizational and occupational culture does become hard to encompass. In response to this argument, Hofstede acknowledges that considerable differences cost at the organizational level (1991 93), yet it redefines the inviolate organizational culture as a mere set of shared perceptions of daily practices (1991 182-3), accordingly distancing from the early-stage value-based definition.According to McSweeney (2002b), this is only a failed attempt t o deliver a ingenuous concept and definition of organizational culture. Back to Culture Hofstedes romance of culture is often linked to two different concepts, unique national tendency and central tendency, respectively. In the first case, as pointed out by McSweeney, the national uniformity which Hofstede claims to have found, results to have no valid grand as it derives from a very specific micro-level (IBM).Secondly, in regards to the claimed average tendency, the heterogeneity of questionnaires responses completely contradicts this conceptualization at the first place. As cited from Jacob (2005), if exceptions to the rule are as numerous as the rule itself to what extent could predictions based on that rule be reliable? In many countries, McSweeney argues, the typical IBM employee would at a high extent diverge from the general population.That is to say that an IBM employee in Taiwan would not necessarily reflect Taiwans population average individual, especially when we are t alking about mostwhatone who holds a managerial position in a multinational firm. This concept brings us to another aspect of McSweeneys criticism (2002a92), culture treated as a mere epiphenomenon, completely casual, as conceptualized by Hofstede, it would reflexion like some(a)thing which moves along the history enduring, yet it is not playing area to radical changes due to fluctuating social, economic and institutional trends (Tab. 3). Questionnaire and DimensionsArguably, the questionnaire itself also presents some limitations. Firstly aimed to investigate the employees morale at IBM, it also resulted to reflect some values that, for Hofstede, could have been used to unveil the national cultural differences myth. Citing one of his research questions, How long do you think you will continue work for this company? (1980 Appendix 1) , it is obviously clear there would be differences in whether this question is being asked in a country, say, the USA, with plentiful employment v acancies, or in a country, say Thailand where at the time of the research the unemployment score was comparatively high. to a lower place these circumstances, it is extremely hard to assume that the respondents were not influenced by other social, political and institutional factors (See Tab. 3). Therefore, his researchs entire reliability could be easily questioned on this basis. disrespect ensuring the confidentiality of respondents answers, employees foreknowledge of the end impersonal of the survey might have easily encouraged them to assume a more positive attitude in order to support their divisions reputation.Arguably, the responses analysed by Hofstede were situationally restricted (McSweeney, 2002a 107). In more details, the questions only reflected values related to the workplace, moreover the surveys were exclusively directed within the workplace and were not tested in non-work place locations for both same respondents and others. In light of the first usage of the qu estionnaire, it is spontaneous to raise a question in regards to the validity of the dimensions found by Hofstede.Could it be possible that a specialized study in cultural differences would have delineated different dimensions? In his response, Hofstede acknowledged that, although there may be some other dimensions equally important for the structuring of a comparative cultural analysis, relative questions were simply not asked. McSweeney with reference to Triadis (1994) argues that bi-polar dimensions of national cultures should not be comprised of opposite poles (for example Individualism Collectivism), but depending on the situations they could coexist.Under these principles, the work of Schwartz (1992) appears to give a comparatively dynamic dimensions disposition. memorial and Research Validations In the last section of his book, Hofstede (1980 326- 331) includes some historical and modern events which he states would validate his research findings. However, McSweeney (2002b ) argues that these stories reveal nothing but justifications, divergence out the basics for an accurate confirmation.According to his analysis, Hosfstedes assertion, the more manly a culture the more antagonistic are industrial relations, is flaw as the trends for working days lost in industrial disputes , in both Spain and the UK, result to vary enormously over time. In other words, we could argue that these fluctuations are highly influenced by political, economic and institutional changes. In the case of industrial relations disputes in Spain, after the death of Spanish dictator Franco in 1975, the level of working days was subject to a huge increase.Hofstedes findings have also been validated by other studies, reflecting the same national cultural differences . This is one of the reasons why Hofstedes work has so far been used in many disciplines as open of the cultural approach in the sphere of comparative international management. Under these circumstances, as Hofstede st ates (2002 p. 1358), it is just not all about faith in his research, but it is the willingness of the society to accept his work as something which could be taken to a step further.In some cases, institutional factors, history, politics and thrift do provide better explanations in this field, yet as Hofstede would argue, the cultural perspective does have his validity as it offers a complete different view on values embedded by people which do have an influence on their daily lives. Conclusion Arguably, some of Hofstede research frameworks features, especially the ones related to his research methodology, do present various shortcomings. However, the overall importance of cultural approach for national differences should be seen as undeniable (Koen, 2005).Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that after all, the main argument merely evolves on Hofstedes claims to have uncovered the secrets of entire national cultures (1980b 44). Despite his book title narrowing the scope of its f indings down to the work-place, Cultures Consequences International Differences in Work-Place Values, Hofstede, in many of his publications, seems to overestimate his findings. It is extremely important to acknowledge and appreciate the enormous contribution that Hofstede has made to the entire societys understanding of international cultural differences.On the other hand, it is also crucial to stay away from the taken for granted approach when coming across such a complex topic. As mentioned in the preface, etic and emic approach despite having a different vision on how to bank note and analyse culture, they could fluent be seen as two complementarities which could be extensively used for a more thorough research. In addition, although admitting that limitations in research methodology do hamper the objectivity of findings, the etic approach still stands as the unique way to allow researchers to obtain comparable quantitative data.I do also appreciate the contributions made by Mc Sweeney, whose criticisms have enabled me to adopt a more critical line of thought in analysing this elicit topic. At some extent we could assume that Hofstedes research is still a work in progress, eventually other advocates of the etic approach will take it to a more universal level, as some of other authors in this field have already done. I would like to conclude this essay with a quote from McSweeney (2002a 90), when he states that Hofstedes work could be dismissed as a misguided attempt to measure the unmeasurable .