INTERCULTURAL MANAGEMENT REPORT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SWATI SINGH, MIB 31, GRENOBLE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
A Critical Review of Brendan McSweeney, 2009, “Dynamic diversity: variety and variation within countries”
Hofstede developed National cultures model (hereafter ‘the model’) to unable one to understand the National culture of any country, which he assumed enduring, pervasive and constitutive. Using the Hofstede’s (1990, 2001) and Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) ‘the model’, McSweeney (2009) argued its incapability to explain the diversity within the countries. This research was aimed to provide an outline explanation of the retention of model within the organization studies and its future within that discipline. . The paper unfolds the fallacious assumption taken up by the national culturist while studying the culture within nation. Various references from the literatures, anthropology, examples from countries, elements from novels, and anthropology are taken to convey the idea. Albeit the paper overview ‘the model’ falls in the discipline of anthropology, it outlines the three contexts1 where the rise of the model continues to persist. Although three possible development of the model in near future are presented, the conclusion indicates the quavering future of the ‘The model’. To an extent this research is investigative and result of this study provides an insight on the model’s weaknesses. However, some limitations should be considered in accepting the study’s finding.
McSweeney critically analysed the model, the fallacious assumptions used to draw the model. He reviewed the flaws and limitations of ‘the model’ in the field of organization studies. He begins by pointing to the fallacious assumptions used to draw the model. As the author himself acknowledge that some patterns do exists within the culture, so he wisely dismisses the coherence, pure and stable nature of the culture by appropriately picking the reviews from literatures. However, he backed up a good reasoning to explain independent effects of non-cultural features by citing an example of Ireland sport team and the sign language. He then goes on to unbundle the faulty measurement moves used to empirically describe the national culture such as Data unit, conflating level of analysis and invalid generalization. Further, he describes the model’s fall in the field of anthropology. Although he criticised hofstede framework mainly because of the faulty conception, he mentioned he presented the three contexts where the use of model is expected to persist. Limitations
Hofstede’ framework (1980) has been highly criticised on methodological stance because it has been misunderstood and applied in inappropriate ways (Eckhardt, 2002).The definition of culture hofstede (1991) used is very different from other. Proper understanding of the context in which his model is being used is required to understand the model’s compatibility. The author seems to misunderstood Hofstede’s context and his definition and therefore pointed out four methodological limitations of the model. Two Out of four of his argument are well packed with sound reasoning and are valid, however the other two, conflicting level of analysis and invalid generalization does not relate to hofstede context because Hofstede (2001) himself acknowledge that his scores are indicative of the natural tendency of the entire nation rather than predictive of the individual behaviour. The same, as far as generalization is concerned, Chapman (1997) states “Hofstede’s work is used and admired at a very high level of generalization. Those who take country scores in the various dimensions as given realities, informing or confirming other research, do not typically inquire into the detail of the procedures through which...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document