Hofstede Cultural Difference Critiques Essay

Arguably, Hofstedes spirt (1980, 1997) represents a pi nonp arilering get of tillage as a mien of comparing worldwide management frame litigates. First of all, prior to go twain evaluations in regards to McSweeneys comment (2002a/b), it is crucial to identify the nature of Hostedes work indoors the correct ambit of the glossiness go about itself.In rootageage to the guarantors of the emic approach , whose briny conceits tend to revoke the equalization and standardization of dimensions in depicted object cultures comparisons, the pillars of Hofstedes work, which belong to the etic approach , are base on 5 dimensions whereby case differences are then measured. In early(a) words, from the emic standpoint it is withal arguable that the etic inquiry methodological analysis, as aiming to identify equalities among matter differences, would essay throwing out the baby with the bath pee .On the new(prenominal) hand, from the emic place, dividing the culture int o a set of defined cranial orbits stands as the just way to actually enable searchers to correspond cultures . Having briefly introduced the short flood tides relate to both approaches, McSweeneys critiques can now be narrow down to a specialized scope, which is generally encompassed with Hofstedes question methodology.Research severenessIn light of the importance for whatever inquiryes to provide clear definitions on the specific enquiry concepts and key words, the original take up of this essay leave evolve on contextualizing the meaning of culture within Hofstedes work, thus, giving ground to McSweeneys applicable sources of criticism. Geert (1980) has defined culture as the corporate programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one company or category of the great unwashed from a nonher(prenominal). McSweeney essentially critiques Hofstedes askion of nations as means of ethnic comparisons, scorning the territoriality uniqueness of culture in primis.I n regards to this issue, Hofstede in a second stage (2002 1356) have a go at its that nations are not the ideal elements for learning cultures, in so far this is the exactly way researchers could have access to comparable with(predicate) units. Predictably, thousands of other authors contri exclusivelyions in regards to the definition of culture would make this occupation even to a greater extent labyrinthian. For the sake of this analysis, accent would be authorisen to the arguments in regards to the research methodology. Research Reliability Research pattern The first criticism which may elevate is same(p)ly to involve the representativeness of Hofstedes research sample.In to a greater extent details, he argues that 117,000 questionnaires for dickens surveys, c everyplaceing 66 countries would be abundant to ensure the research reliability. From my point of view, McSweeneys critiques result founded when analysing the sampling framework in more details. CountryNumber of Respondents for Each Country Belgium, France, owing(p) Britain, Ger legion(predicate), Japan and Sweden (6 countries)More than railyard Chile, Columbia, Greece, Hong Kong, Iran, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and bomb (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 exceedingly small compared to other countries with over 1000 respondents. To couple this argument, McSweeney discusses almost the narrowness of the community surveyed as respondents were all IBM employees, mainly elusive with the marketing and sales departments. Hofstedes resolution (2002), stating that this samples framework had hardly been use in modulate to attach the national culture differences from both the organisational and occupational culture, seems however to give rhytidoplasty to other arguments.As McSweeneys (2002a 95-99 ) argues, respondents cultural framework is make 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 shortcomings would be that at that place 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? According to McSweeney (2002a 96), these assumptions are in any case crude and implausible to underpin Hofstedes emphatic empirical claims .Following the guide of his argument we come across a situation where assuming that an IBM employee, whether in a developed USA head line or a new open(a) branch office in Pakistan, will possess the same identical organisational and occupational culture does become large(p) to encompass. In response to this argument, Hofstede acknowledges that considerable differences know at the organizational level (1991 93), up to now it redefines the entire organizati onal culture as a mere set of divided perceptions of daily practices (1991 182-3), therefore distancing from the early-stage value-based definition.According to McSweeney (2002b), this is only a failed tackle to deliver a straightforward concept and definition of organizational culture. Back to Culture Hofstedes ken of culture is often linked to 2 different concepts, unique national goal and central tendency, respectively. In the first case, as pointed out by McSweeney, the national uniformness which Hofstede claims to have found, results to have no binding grounds as it derives from a real specific micro-level (IBM).Secondly, in regards to the claimed fair(a) tendency, the heterogeneousness 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 outcome could predictions based on that rule be reliable? In many countries, McSweeney argues, the emblematic IBM employee would at a high fulfilment diverge from the general population.That is to say that an IBM employee in Taiwan would not necessarily glitter Taiwans population average individual, especially when we are talking well-nigh mostone who holds a managerial localization in a multinational firm. This concept brings us to another aspect of McSweeneys criticism (2002a92), culture treated as a mere epiphenomenon, completely chance(a), as conceptualized by Hofstede, it would look like or sothing which moves along the history enduring, yet it is not subject to radical changes referable 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 esprit de corps at IBM, it also resulted to reflect some values that, for Hofstede, could have been used to bring out the national cultural differences myth. Citing one of his research questions, How long do you think you will continue work for this company? (1980 cecal appendage 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 vacancies, or in a country, say Thailand where at the time of the research the unemployment rate was relatively high.Under these circumstances, it is extremely hard to turn out that the respondents were not influenced by other social, governmental and institutional factors (See Tab. 3). Therefore, his researchs entire reliability could be slow questioned on this basis. patronage ensuring the confidentiality of respondents answers, employees foreknowledge of the end objective lens 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 que stions only reflected values related to to the workplace, furthermore 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 purpose of the questionnaire, it is voluntary 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 show 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 comparativel y dynamic dimensions disposition. record and Research Validations In the last divide of his book, Hofstede (1980 326- 331) includes some historical and contemporary events which he states would validate his research findings. However, McSweeney (2002b) argues that these stories reveal zilch but justifications, leaving out the basic principle for an accurate confirmation.According to his analysis, Hosfstedes assertion, the more masculine a culture the more antagonistic are industrial dealing, is blemished as the trends for working days bewildered 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 immense increase.Hofstedes findings have also been formalize by other st udies, reflecting the same national cultural differences . This is one of the reasons why Hofstedes work has so far been used in many disciplines as initiate of the cultural approach in the theatre of comparative international management. Under these circumstances, as Hofstede states (2002 p. 1358), it is just not all about faith in his research, but it is the willingness of the clubhouse to accept his work as something which could be taken to a step further.In some cases, institutional factors, history, politics and delivery 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 several(a) shortcomings. However, the overall importance of cultural approach for na tional differences should be seen as unquestionable (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 findings down to the work-place, Cultures Consequences transnational Differences in Work-Place Values, Hofstede, in many of his publications, seems to overestimate his findings. It is extremely important to acknowledge and take account the enormous contribution that Hofstede has made to the entire societys savvy of international cultural differences.On the other hand, it is also crucial to stay external from the taken for granted approach when coming across such a complex topic. As mentioned in the preface, etic and emic approach condescension having a different vision on how to measure and analyse culture, they could still be seen as two complementarities which could be extensively used fo r a more careful 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 numerical data.I do also appreciate the contributions made by McSweeney, whose criticisms have enabled me to adopt a more critical line of thought in analysing this interesting 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 reason this essay with a quote from McSweeney (2002a 90), when he states that Hofstedes work could be push aside as a misguided attempt to measure the unmeasurable .