Hofstede's Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Consequences
Published in Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 1, [January] 2002, pp. 89-118
HOFSTEDE 'S MODEL OF NATIONAL CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES: A TRIUMPH OF FAITH - A FAILURE OF ANALYSIS
Brendan McSweeney
University of Essex
ABSTRACT Geert Hofstede 's legendary national culture research is critiqued. Crucial assumptions which underlie his claim to have uncovered the secrets of entire national cultures are described and challenged. The plausibility of systematically causal national cultures is questioned.
Introduction
Do nations have cultures? Within each of the ‘management disciplines’ there is a significant literature which assumes that each nation has a distinctive, influential, and describable ‘culture’ As Hickson and Pugh declare: '[i]t ‘shapes everything’ (1995: 90).
Other than a priori belief, what is the basis of claims that influential national cultures exist? What is the quality of the evidence appealed to? Frequently, within the management disciplines, the causal-national-culture accepting literature justifies its reliance on the notion of national culture by citing approvingly the work of Geert Hofstede who claims to have successfully 'uncover[ed] the secrets of entire national cultures ' (1980b: 44). Whilst Anderson has vividly described nations as ‘imagined communities’ (1991) and Wallerstein states that he is ‘skeptical that we can operationalise the concept of culture ... in any way that enables us to use it for statements that are more than trivial’ (1990: 34), Hofstede claims to have identified the four (later five) 'main dimensions ' of national culture along which countries can be hierarchically ordered[1] (1980a, 1984, 1991). By 1998 he could confidently claim that the scale of acceptance of his notion of distinctive-identifiable-influential national cultures was such that ‘a true paradigm shift’ had occurred (480) (see also Sondergaard 1994: 453).
Hofstede 's model could be evaluated in a number of
HOFSTEDE 'S MODEL OF NATIONAL CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES: A TRIUMPH OF FAITH - A FAILURE OF ANALYSIS
Brendan McSweeney
University of Essex
ABSTRACT Geert Hofstede 's legendary national culture research is critiqued. Crucial assumptions which underlie his claim to have uncovered the secrets of entire national cultures are described and challenged. The plausibility of systematically causal national cultures is questioned.
Introduction
Do nations have cultures? Within each of the ‘management disciplines’ there is a significant literature which assumes that each nation has a distinctive, influential, and describable ‘culture’ As Hickson and Pugh declare: '[i]t ‘shapes everything’ (1995: 90).
Other than a priori belief, what is the basis of claims that influential national cultures exist? What is the quality of the evidence appealed to? Frequently, within the management disciplines, the causal-national-culture accepting literature justifies its reliance on the notion of national culture by citing approvingly the work of Geert Hofstede who claims to have successfully 'uncover[ed] the secrets of entire national cultures ' (1980b: 44). Whilst Anderson has vividly described nations as ‘imagined communities’ (1991) and Wallerstein states that he is ‘skeptical that we can operationalise the concept of culture ... in any way that enables us to use it for statements that are more than trivial’ (1990: 34), Hofstede claims to have identified the four (later five) 'main dimensions ' of national culture along which countries can be hierarchically ordered[1] (1980a, 1984, 1991). By 1998 he could confidently claim that the scale of acceptance of his notion of distinctive-identifiable-influential national cultures was such that ‘a true paradigm shift’ had occurred (480) (see also Sondergaard 1994: 453).
Hofstede 's model could be evaluated in a number of
References: Alexander, J. C. & Seidman, S. (Eds.) Culture and society: Contemporary debates, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Allexander, J. C. The promise of a cultural sociology: Technological discourse and the sacred and profane information machine, in J. C. Alexander and S. Seidman (Eds.) op. cit. 1992, 293-323. Alvesson, M. & Billing, Y. D. Understanding gender and organisations London: Sage, 1997. Anderson, B. Imagined communities, London: Verso. 1991. Archer, M. S. Culture & agency: the place of culture in social theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C. P. & Peterson, M. F. (Eds.) Handbook of organizational culture & climate. London: Sage, 2000 Banai, M., Review of: Hofstede, Geert, Baumgartel, H and Thomas, H. Review of: Culture 's consequences. International differences in work-related values, Personnel Psychology, 1982, 35.1, 192-196. Bhagat, R. S. Black-white ethnic differences in identification with the work ethic. Academy of Management Review, 1979, 4. 381-391. Bock, P. K. Rethinking psychological anthropology (2nd ed.) Prospects Heights, IL: Waveland, 1999. Bock, P. K. (2000) Culture & Personality Revisited, American Behavioural Scientist, 44.1 32-40. Bond, M. H. Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: the Rokeach and Chinese value surveys, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 55.6, 1009-1015. Bryman, A. Quantity and quality in social research, London: Routledge, 1988. Clark, P. Organisations in action: Competition between contexts, London: Routledge, 2000. Connor, W. A nation is a nation, is an ethnic group is a ... Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1978, 1/4 379-88. Cosco, G. Untitled mimeo, Department of Accounting and Management Information Systems, University of Alberta, 1997. Crane, D. (ed.) The sociology of culture, Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. Cray, D. and Mallory, G. Making sense of managing culture, London: International Thompson Business Press, 1998. Davies, N. The isles: a history, Macmillan: London, 1999. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate life Reading MA.: Addison-Wesley, 1982. DiMaggio, P. Culture and cognition, Annual Review of Sociology, 1997, 23, 263-87. d 'Iribarne, P. The usefulness of an ethnographic approach to international comparisons of the functioning of organizations, 1991, Paper presented at an EGOS Colloquium, Vienna, July 15-17. Djelic, M. Exporting the American model: the postwar transformation of European business, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Dorfman, P. W. and Howell, J. P., Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited, Advances in International Comparative Management, 1988, 3, 127-50. Etzioni, A. The active society, London: Free Press, 1968. Farber, M. L. The problem of national character: A methodological analysis, The Journal of Psychology, 1950, 30, 307-316. Freeman, D. Margaret Mead and Samoa: the making and unmaking of an anthropological myth, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983. Friedman, M. Essays in positive economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Fromm, E. Fear of freedom, London, 1984. Garfinkel, H. Studies in ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1967. Geertz, G. A. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1973. Gellner, E. Concepts and society, in B. R. Wilson (ed.) Rationality, Oxford: Blackwell, 1979. Goodstein, L. D. Commentary: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 1981, Summer, 49-54. Gould, S. J. The mismeasure of man, Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1981. Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. Beyond culture: space, identity, and the politics of difference Cultural anthropology, 1992, 7. Hampden-Turner, C, and Trompenaars, F. Response to Geert Hofstede, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1997, 21.1, 149-159. Hickson, D. J. & Pugh, D. S. Management worldwide: the impact of societal culture on organizations around the globe, London: Penguin, 1995. Hofstede, G. Culture 's consequences: international differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980a. Hofstede, G. Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?, Organizational Dynamics, 1980b, Summer, 42-63. Hofstede, G. Do American theories apply abroad? A reply to Goodstein and Hunt Organizational Dynamics, 1981, Summer, 63-68. Hofstede, G., The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories, Journal of International Business Studies, 1983, Fall, 75-90. Hofstede, G. Culture 's consequences: international differences in work-related values, Abridged version, London: Sage, 1984. Hofstede, G. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind, London: McGraw-Hill, 1991. Hofstede, G. Foreword to U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.) op. cit., London: Sage, 1994, i-xiii. Hofstede, G. Images of Europe: past, present and future in Joynt, P. and Warner M. (Eds.) op. cit. 1996, 147-165. Hofstede, G. & Associates Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998a. Hofstede, G. 'Attitudes, values and organizational culture: disentangling the concepts ' Organization studies, 1998b, 19/3, 477-492. Hofstede, G., The universal and the specific in 21st-century global management, Organizational Dynamics, 1999, Summer, 34-43. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35, 286-316.