Hofstede Cultural Difference Critiques Essay Example for Free

Hofstede Cultural Difference Critiques EssayArguably, Hofstedes work (1980, 1997) represents a pioneering approach of stopping point as a way of equivalence international management frameworks. First of all, prior to offering any evaluations in regards to McSweeneys criticism (2002a/b), it is crucial to identify the nature of Hostedes work inside the entire sphere of the culture approach itself.In contrast to the guarantors of the emic approach , whose main innovations tend to discard the equalization and standardization of dimensions in national cultures comparisons, the pillars of Hofstedes work, which be ache to the etic approach , are 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 query methodology, as aiming to identify equalities among national differences, would risk throwing out the baby with the bath water .On the other hand, from the emic perspective, dividing the culture into a set of defined scopes stands as the only way to actually enable interpret intoers to compare cultures . Having briefly introduced the shortcomings related to both approaches, McSweeneys critiques outhouse 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 provide clear definitions on the specific research concepts and key words, the first part of this adjudicate bequeath evolve on contextualizing the meaning of culture within Hofstedes work, thus, giving ground to McSweeneys germane(predicate) sources of criticism. Geert (1980) has defined culture as the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from a nonher. McSweeney essentially critiques Hofstedes adoption of nations as means of cultural comparisons, scorning the territoriality uniqueness of culture in primis.In regards to this issue, Hofstede in a second stage (2002 1356) notices that nations are not the ideal elements for studying cultures, barely 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 motive even to a greater extent complex. For the sake 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 a surface is probably to involve the representativeness of Hofstedes research archetype.In more 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 founded 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 tha n 1000 Chile, Columbia, Greece, Hong Kong, Iran, Ireland, Israel, New 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 marketing and 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 however to give rise to other arguments.As McSweeneys (2002a 95-99) argues, respondents cultural framework is made up by three non-interacting and durable levels of culture (Tab. 2). At the first level, the assumptions which would free this molding from any shortcomings would be that there is only one IBM culture and that there is also a common worldwide occupational culture for each crease (Hofstede 1980a 181). What are these assumptions based on? According to McSweeney (2002a 96), these assumptions are too crude and implausible to underpin Hofstedes emphatic empirical claims .Following the thread of his argument we come across a situation where assuming that an IBM employee, whether in a developed USA head office or a new loose branch office in Pakistan, will possess the same identical organizational and occupational culture does become disenfranchised to encompass. In response to this argument, Hofstede acknowledges that appreciable 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), consequently distancing from the early-stage value-based definition.According to M cSweeney (2002b), this is only a failed attempt to deliver a straightforward concept and definition of organizational culture. Back to Culture Hofstedes vision of culture is often linked to two dissimilar concepts, unique national tendency and central tendency, respectively. In the first case, as pointed out by McSweeney, the national harmony which Hofstede claims to have found, results to have 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 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 po pulation average individual, especially when we are talking about whatsoeverone 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 roughlything 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. first 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 working for this company? (1980 Appendix 1) , it is obviously clear there would be differences in whether this question is being asked in a countr y, 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 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 might have easily encouraged them to assume a more positive attitude in order to acquit 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 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 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 enemy 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 portion of his loudness, 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 antagonistic 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 death of Spanish dictator Franco in 1975, the level of working days was subject to a long 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 off the beaten track(predicate) been used in many 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 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 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 cultur es (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 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 confirmation 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 approach still stands as the unique way to allow researchers to obtain comparab le 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 evoke 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 .