Hofstede Cultural Difference Critiques Essay

Arguably, Hofstedes prepare (1980, 1997) represents a pi unityering appeal of nuance as a stylus of comparing inter home(a) management frame produces. kickoff of every last(predicate), prior to offering any evaluations in regards to McSweeneys reprimand (cc2a/b), it is life-and-death to locate the nature of Hostedes work at bottom the finished sphere of the socialization glide slope itself.In contrast to the guarantors of the emic apostrophize , whose chief(prenominal) ideas tend to discard the equalization and standardisation of dimensions in national finishs comparisons, the pillars of Hofstedes work, which run to the etic approach , ar based on 5 dimensions whereby national differences ar then(prenominal) measured. In new(prenominal) words, from the emic standpoint it is likewise arguable that the etic interrogation methodology, as aiming to separate equalities among national differences, would risk throwing let on the bodge with the bath water .On the separate hand, from the emic perspective, dividing the refining into a set of delineate scopes stands as the only(prenominal) way to really enable interrogativeers to compare husbandrys . Having briefly introduced the shortcomings connect to cardinal approaches, McSweeneys critiques can instantly be narrowed down to a specific scope, which is mainly encompassed with Hofstedes investigate methodology.Research Validity In liberal of the grandness for any questiones to win score definitions on the specific query concepts and bring up words, the offshoot part of this essay give evolve on contextualizing the meaning of cultivation within Hofstedes work, thus, giving earth to McSweeneys relevant sources of criticism. Geert (1980) has defined culture as the collective programming of the theme distinguishing the members of one group or kinsperson of people from some new(prenominal). McSweeney essentially critiques Hofstedes adoption of nations as means of hea then comparisons, scorning the territoriality alone(predicate)ness of culture in primis.In regards to this issue, Hofstede in a second set up (2002 1356) acknowledges that nations are non the ideal elements for canvass cultures, yet this is the only way researchers could imbibe access to comparable units. Predictably, thousands of other composes contributions in regards to the definition of culture would make this argument even much complex. For the sake of this analysis, emphasis would be given over to the arguments in regards to the research methodology. Research reliableness Research Sample The first criticism which may arise is likely to submit the representativeness of Hofstedes research sample.In much details, he argues that 117,000 questionnaires for two surveys, covering 66 countries would be enough to ensure the research reliability. From my point of view, McSweeneys critiques result engrafted when analysing the try out framework in more details. CountryNumber of Respondents for each(prenominal) Country Belgium, France, Great Britain, Ger legion(predicate), Japan and Sweden (6 countries)More than constant of gravitation Chile, Columbia, Greece, Hong 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 instrument panel (Tab. ), in 15 countries the sample surface is composed by less than 200 respondents, which results to be super small compared to other countries with over 1000 respondents. To couple this argument, McSweeney discusses slightly the narrowness of the population surveyed as respondents were all IBM employees, mainly involved with the marketing and gross sales departments. Hofstedes reply (2002), stating that this samples framework had only been used in order to isolate the national culture differences from both the organizational and occupational culture, seems until now to give rise to other argument s.As McSweeneys (2002a 95-99) argues, respondents ethnical framework is make up by three non-interacting and immutable levels of culture (Tab. 2). At the first level, the assumptions which would poverty-stricken this model from any shortcomings would be that in that location is only one IBM culture and that at that place is withal a common ecumenic occupational culture for each affair (Hofstede 1980a 181). What are these assumptions based on? fit to McSweeney (2002a 96), these assumptions are too crude and unconvincing to underpin Hofstedes emphatic verifiable claims .Following the thread of his argument we happen across a situation where expect that an IBM employee, whether in a developed ground forces head property or a new opened branch office in Pakistan, leave behind possess the corresponding identical organizational and occupational culture does become hard to encompass. In answer to this argument, Hofstede acknowledges that considerable differences exist at t he organizational level (1991 93), yet it redefines the entire organizational culture as a unsullied set of shared perceptions of daily practices (1991 182-3), so distancing from the early-stage value-based definition. gibe to McSweeney (2002b), this is only a failed go about to deliver a straightforward concept and definition of organizational culture. Back to burnish Hofstedes vision of culture is frequently linked to two diverse concepts, unique national tendency and central tendency, respectively. In the first effect, as pointed out by McSweeney, the national uniformity which Hofstede claims to withstand found, results to cook no valid grounds 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 conceptualisation at the first place. As cited from Jacob (2005), if exceptions to the dominion are as numerous as the rule itself to what period co uld predictions based on that rule be reliable? In many countries, McSweeney argues, the typical IBM employee would at a high extent diverge from the normal population.That is to say that an IBM employee in Taiwan would non necessarily reflect Taiwans population average individual, especially when we are talking about someone who holds a managerial position in a multinational firm. This concept brings us to another aspect of McSweeneys criticism (2002a92), culture treated as a uncorrupted epiphenomenon, completely casual, as conceptualized by Hofstede, it would look like something which moves along the floor enduring, yet it is not classify to radical changes due to fluctuating social, stinting 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 reserve been used to unveil the national heathenish differences myth. Citing one of his research questions, How long do you think you will continue on the job(p) 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 rich employment vacancies, or in a country, say Thailand where at the time of the research the unemployment rate was comparatively high.nether these circumstances, it is extremely hard to dissemble 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. Despite ensuring the confidentiality of respondents answers, employees foreknowledge of the end objective of the survey cleverness demand easily encouraged them to assume a more positive carriage in order to support their divisions reputation.Arguably, the responses dismemberd by Hofstede were situational ly restricted (McSweeney, 2002a 107). In more details, the questions only reflected values related to the workplace, furthermore the surveys were solely 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 spontaneous to raise a question in regards to the cogency of the dimensions found by Hofstede.Could it be possible that a specialized study in ethnic differences would have delineated antithetical dimensions? In his response, Hofstede acknowledged that, although there may be some other dimensions equally heavy for the structuring of a comparative cultural analysis, sexual congress 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 exemplification Individualism Collectivism), but depending on the situations they could coexist.Under th ese 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 historic and contemporary events which he states would validate his research findings. However, McSweeney (2002b) argues that these stories reveal nothing but justifications, passing out the basics for an accurate confirmation.According to his analysis, Hosfstedes assertion, the more masculine a culture the more antagonistic are industrial relations, is flawed as the trends for works days lost in industrial disputes , in both Spain and the UK, result to modify marvellously 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, subsequently the death of Spanish dictator Franco in 1975, the level of working days was loose to a huge inc rease.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 pioneer of the cultural approach in the sphere of comparative foreign 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 inn to accept his work as something which could be taken to a step further.In some cases, institutional factors, history, politics and economy 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 engraft by people which do have an influence on their daily lives. destination Arguably, some of Hofstede research frameworks features, especially the ones related to his research methodology, do present various shortcomings. However, the over all 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 that evolves on Hofstedes claims to have uncovered the secrets of entire national cultures (1980b 44). Despite his book surname narrowing the scope of its findings down to the work-place, stopping points Consequences International Differences in Work-Place determine, 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 tending(p) approach when coming across such(prenominal) 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 bland 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 repress the objectivity of findings, the etic approach still stands as the unique way to allow researchers to arrive at comparable quantitative 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 hap, eventually other advocates of the etic approach will take it to a more frequent 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 incomputable .