How relevant are Hofstede's dimensions for inter-cultural studies? A replication of Hofstede's research among current international business students (original) (raw)
Related papers
"HOFSTEDE'S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS: ARE INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IMPORTANT?"
Understanding cultural dimensions becomes increasingly important as multinational business activities continue to increase. To remain competitive and minimize problems, businesses cannot assume an ethnocentric approach to staffing (Kopp, 1994). In an attempt to identify how an organization should be structured internationally, considerable research has been conducted to identify various cultural dimensions. Hofstede's model of cultural dimensions (1980) has become the most widely accepted and most frequently cited model for cross-cultural research (Bhagat & McQuaid, 1982; Lonner & Berry, 1998; Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001; Sondergaard, 1994). However, the model assumes similar responses from all individuals within a culture and does not account for individual differences. The finding from this study found significant intracultural differences based on gender and religious orientation. The impact from the findings and needs for future research are also discussed.
An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006
Journal of International Business Studies
Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson's (2006) JIBS article summarized and critiqued international business research inspired by the most cited book in the field Hofstede's 1980 Culture's Consequences: International differences in work-related values (Hofstede [1980]2001). They identified a number of issues in this research and offered several recommendations for improving it in the future, thus laying a strong foundation for Hofstede-related work since 2006. In this commentary, we assess Kirkman et al.'s (2006) impact on the field. Our review shows that their ideas have informed and inspired their own and other scholars' work and have led to significant progress in the way in which Hofstede's framework has been used in international business in the last decade. Here, we specifically focus on the country-level culture studies and assess how research has implemented Kirkman et al.'s three main recommendations-to explore cultural dimensions beyond those introduced by Hofstede, to distinguish between country effects and cultural effects, and to show not only if culture matters but also how much it matters. In addition to the overview, we provide a comprehensive test of these recommendations showing how they can be put into research practice underscoring the theoretical and empirical relevance of the original 2006 article. Our commentary concludes with additional ideas on further strengthening Hofstede-inspired research at the country level of analysis.
A critical evaluation of Hofstede’s cross-cultural study
From last few decades, scholars have been discussing the significance of ‘culture’, within business parameters to perform better decision making (Vitell, Nwachukwu and Barnes, 1993). Among many scholars, Professor Dr Geert Hofstede’s work is one of the most cited work on cross- culture relationship (El-Azez Safi, 2010). Dr Hofstede managed to identify different dimensions and its significance on cross-culture relationships. His work become an initial step towards understanding the diversity of human cultures (Dr Kristine Marin Kawamura interviews Geert Hofstede, PhD, 2013) (Minkov and Hofstede, 2011).Even though Hofstede set up an excellent initial fundamental platform regarding cross-culture study, nevertheless his work also attracted criticisms from various scholars such as (Jones,2007) (Fang,2003) and (McSweeney, 2002) .This paper is set out to discuss both practical applicability and criticisms of Hofstede’s cross-culture study on organisations.
This article describes briefly the Hofstede model of six dimensions of national cultures: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Long/ Short Term Orientation, and Indulgence/Restraint. It shows the conceptual and research efforts that preceded it and led up to it, and once it had become a paradigm for comparing cultures, research efforts that followed and built on it. The article stresses that dimensions depend on the level of aggregation; it describes the six entirely different dimensions found in the Hofstede et al. (2010) research into organizational cultures. It warns against confusion with value differences at the individual level. It concludes with a look ahead in what the study of dimensions of national cultures and the position of countries on them may still bring.
Research Handbook of Comparative Employment Relations, 2011
The area of cross-cultural management and organization studies has been dominated by Hofstede's (1980a) seminal work on cultural values dimensions. Despite much recent criticism, and perhaps because of it, he remains the most cited author in this area. It is difficult to start any account in this field without reference to his work, and this is certainly the starting point here. This chapter first looks at the main contributions of the work of Hofstede, and others working parallel with him or subsequent to his main body of work. This includes looking at the merits of studies including the World Values Survey, Trompenaars (1993) and its subsequent reinterpretation by Peter Smith (Smith, Trompenaars and Dugan, 1996) and the more recent work of the GLOBE study (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, 2004). Yet, how useful are these and what are their shortcomings? This chapter then goes on to argue that although contributing greatly to the development of a sub-discipline, Cross-cultural Management, the 'paradigm' that Hofstede (2007) claims to have created has straight-jacketed this field. Yet this is no new paradigm that he has created, it
DIMENSIONALIZING CULTURES: THE HOFSTEDE MODEL IN CONTEXT
This article describes briefly the Hofstede model of five dimensions of national cultures: Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, Masculinity and Long Term Orientation. It shows the conceptual and research efforts that preceded it and led up to it, and once it had become a paradigm for comparing cultures, research efforts that followed and built on it. The article stresses that dimensions depend on the level of aggregation; it describes the six entirely different dimensions found in the Hofstede et al. research into organizational cultures. It warns against confusion with value differences at the individual level. It concludes with a look ahead in what the study of dimensions of national cultures and the position of countries on them may still bring.
A test of the validity of Hofstede's cultural framework
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2008
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the reliability and validity of Hofstede's cultural framework when applied at the individual consumer level.Design/methodology/approachMBA students and faculty in the behavioral sciences were asked to review Hofstede's cultural instrument and to indicate which dimension (power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity) each particular item was intended to reflect. Subjects were also asked to respond to each item, thus indicating their underlying values. The reliability of each dimension was computed, and the data were factor analyzed to determine whether the various items loaded in a manner that is consistent with Hofstede's framework, thus providing evidence as to discriminant and convergent validity.FindingsThis study presents evidence that Hofstede's cultural instrument lacks sufficient construct validity when applied at an individual level of analysis. Overall, a majority of ...
2013
With increasing globalization, business activities are transcending national boundaries. Multinational corporations are agents of such globalized business operations and catalyze cross border commercial and industrial ventures. Dealing with different nations obviates exposure to different national cultures and managing the complexity arising out of the multiplicity of cultures. Thus management of international business, in essence hinge on compatibility of the management styles with different national cultures. National culture has certain distinguishing dimensions as professed by scholars like Hofstede and Trompenaar & Hampden-Turner. An understanding of these dimensions and the relations in between them will help international business management in monitoring and assessing the cultural environments and in formulating and executing successful and appropriate business strategies. This paper aims to critically examine the correlation between the different dimensions of national cult...