Hofstede Cultural Difference Critiques Essay Example for Free

Hofstede Cultural Difference Critiques striveArguably, Hofstedes body of work (1980, 1997) represents a pioneering approach of stopping point as a way of comparing multi guinea pig management frameworks. First of all(prenominal), prior to offering any evaluations in regards to McSweeneys criticism (2002a/b), it is crucial to severalise the nature of Hostedes work within the accu ramble sphere of the tillage approach itself.In line of merchandise to the guarantors of the emic approach , whose main concepts t give the axe to discard the equalization and standardization of dimensions in topic cultures comparisons, the pillars of Hofstedes work, which live to the etic approach , argon based on 5 dimensions whereby national differences are then measured. In early(a) words, from the emic standpoint it is also arguable that the etic seek methodology, as aiming to identify equalities among national differences, would risk throwing egress the mar with the bath water .On t he opposite hand, from the emic perspective, dividing the culture into a set of defined scopes stands as the sole(prenominal) way to actually enable investigateers to compare cultures . Having briefly introduced the shortcomings related to both approaches, McSweeneys critiques can presently be narrowed down to a specific scope, which is mainly encompassed with Hofstedes research methodology.Research severityIn light of the importance for any researches to provide clear definitions on the specific research concepts and discern words, the graduation part of this essay will evolve on contextualizing the meaning of culture within Hofstedes work, thus, giving ground to McSweeneys relevant sources of criticism. Geert (1980) has defined culture as the collective programming of the principal distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from an other. McSweeney essentially critiques Hofstedes adoption of nations as inwardness of pagan comparisons, scorning the terr itoriality uniqueness of culture in primis.In regards to this issue, Hofstede in a second stage (2002 1356) acknowledges that nations are non the ideal elements for studying cultures, yet this is the only way researchers could realize access to comparable units. Predictably, thousands of other authors contributions in regards to the definition of culture would make this argument even more complex. For the rice beer of this analysis, emphasis would be given to the arguments in regards to the research methodology. Research Reliability Research Sample The first criticism which may arise is likely to involve the representativeness of Hofstedes research examine.In more details, he argues that 117,000 mindnaires for two surveys, c every postal serviceing 66 countries would be enough to ensure the research reliability. From my point of view, McSweeneys critiques expiration founded when analysing the sampling framework in more details. CountryNumber of Respondents for Each Country Belg ium, France, Great Britain, Ger close to(prenominal), Japan and Sweden (6 countries)More than 1000 Chile, Columbia, Greece, Hong Kong, Iran, Ireland, Israel, recent Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, mainland China, 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 extremely small compared to other countries with over 1000 respondents. To couple this argument, McSweeney discusses about the narrowness of the population surveyed as respondents were all IBM employees, mainly involved with the market and sales departments. Hofstedes reply (2002), stating that this samples framework had only been utilize in bon ton to isolate 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 made u p 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 there 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? harmonize 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 crossways a situation where assuming that an IBM employee, whether in a developed USA head office or a new opened branch office in Pakistan, will possess the same identical organizational and occupational culture does get down hard to encompass. In response to this argument, Hofstede acknowledges that considerable differences exist at the organizational level (1991 93), yet it redefines the entire organizational culture as a mere set of shared 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 attempt to deliver a straightforward concept and definition of organizational culture. can to Culture Hofstedes mass 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 reserve found, results to have no valid grounds as it derives from a very specific micro-level (IBM).Secondly, in regards to the claimed fair tendency, the heterogeneity of questionnaires responses offly contradicts this conceptualization at the first place. As cited from Jacob (2005), if exceptions to the rule are as legion(predicate) 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 po pulation.That is to say that an IBM employee in Taiwan would not necessarily reflect Taiwans population average individual, especially when we are public lecture about both(prenominal)one 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 look like something which moves along the history enduring, yet it is not subject 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 inquire the employees morale at IBM, it also resulted to reflect some set 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 working for this accompany? (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 vacancies, or in a country, say Thailand where at the time of the research the unemployment rate was comparatively high.Under these circumstances, it is extremely hard to assume that the respondents were not curved by other social, political and institutional factors (See Tab. 3). Therefore, his researchs entire reliability could be easily questioned on this basis. Despite ensuring the confidentiality of respondents answers, employees foreknowledge of the end objective of the survey might have easily encouraged them to assume a more tyrannical 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, furthermore the surveys were exclusively directed within the work place 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 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 rootage 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. History and Research Validations In the last section 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 nothing but justifications, leaving out the basics for an accurate confirmation.According to his analysis, Hosfstedes assertion, the more masculine a culture the more averse(p) are industrial relations, is flawed 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 conclusion 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 wherefore Hofstedes work has so far been used in man y disciplines as pioneer of the cultural approach in the sphere 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 society to accept his work as something which could be pipn to a step further.In some cases, institutional factors, history, politics and economy do provide divulge 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 e volves 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 International Differences in Work-Place Values, Hofstede, in many of his publications, seems to overestimate his findings. It is extremely important to acknowledge and give notice 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 measure and analyse culture, they could still 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 appr oach still stands as the unique way to allow researchers to obtain comparable quantitative data.I do also appreciate the contributions made by McSweeney, whose criticisms have enabled me to adopt a more scathing 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 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 .