hofstede cultural dimensional theory
Hofstede 1
Running Head: HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS: THE BASICS AND THE
CRITICISMS
ra
oi
M
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions:
E.
The Basics and the Criticisms
Moira E. Hanna
H
Clemson University
na
an
Hofstede 2
Abstract
Hofstede’s model (1980) has been used widely in research in the past two decades. The culture-based model consists of four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. Each of these dimensions was identified through the use of group-level data collected from IBM branches in 40 different countries. Despite the contributions of the model to cultural research, it has faced many criticisms over the years. Some in-principle criticisms include: the level of
M
analysis used (i.e. group vs. individual), the potential for stereotyping, methodological
oi
concerns, and whether the simplicity of the model truly accommodates the complexity of culture. Even with these criticisms, cultural research continues to rely on Hofstede’s
ra
model as a starting point to quantitatively examine culture.
E. na an
H
Hofstede 3
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: The Basics and the Criticisms
Geert Hofstede made a considerable contribution not only to the field of psychology, but also to all disciplines. The publication of his book Culture’s
Consequences (Hofstede, 1980) helped to further orient the world to differences among cultures, and to begin the process of defining cultural differences using a common language. Hofstede posited that the question: “Do American theories apply abroad?” was the beginning of a “paradigm shift à la Thomas Kuhn” (Hoppe, 2004). Although
M
Hofstede’s book was not the first to address cultural issues and did not cause an
oi
immediate orientation to cultural ideas, the importance of culture became more widespread and has been increasing in importance in such fields as applied psychology,
ra
Running Head: HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS: THE BASICS AND THE
CRITICISMS
ra
oi
M
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions:
E.
The Basics and the Criticisms
Moira E. Hanna
H
Clemson University
na
an
Hofstede 2
Abstract
Hofstede’s model (1980) has been used widely in research in the past two decades. The culture-based model consists of four dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. Each of these dimensions was identified through the use of group-level data collected from IBM branches in 40 different countries. Despite the contributions of the model to cultural research, it has faced many criticisms over the years. Some in-principle criticisms include: the level of
M
analysis used (i.e. group vs. individual), the potential for stereotyping, methodological
oi
concerns, and whether the simplicity of the model truly accommodates the complexity of culture. Even with these criticisms, cultural research continues to rely on Hofstede’s
ra
model as a starting point to quantitatively examine culture.
E. na an
H
Hofstede 3
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: The Basics and the Criticisms
Geert Hofstede made a considerable contribution not only to the field of psychology, but also to all disciplines. The publication of his book Culture’s
Consequences (Hofstede, 1980) helped to further orient the world to differences among cultures, and to begin the process of defining cultural differences using a common language. Hofstede posited that the question: “Do American theories apply abroad?” was the beginning of a “paradigm shift à la Thomas Kuhn” (Hoppe, 2004). Although
M
Hofstede’s book was not the first to address cultural issues and did not cause an
oi
immediate orientation to cultural ideas, the importance of culture became more widespread and has been increasing in importance in such fields as applied psychology,
ra
References: Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences international differences in work-related values Hofstede, G. (2002). Dimensions do not exist: A reply to Brendan McSweeney. Human Relations, 55(11), 1355-1361. Hoppe, M.H. (2004). An interview with Geert Hofstede. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 75-79. Kelly, E. (1901). Government or human evolution: Individualism and collectivism (Vol. Kluckhohn, C. (1953). Universal categories of culture. In A.L. Kroeber (Ed.), Anthropology Today (pp Maznevski, M.L., DiStefano, J.J., Gomez, C.B., Noorderhaven, N.G., & Wu, P. (2002). Smith, P.B. (2002). Culture’s consequences: Something old and something new. Human Relations, 55(1), 119-135. Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business (2nd ed) Vishwanath, A. (2003). Comparing online information effects: A cross-cultural comparison of online information and uncertainty avoidance Human Relations, 55(11), 1373-1395.