mcsweeney national culture

mcsweeney national culture - 1 Published in Human...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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 1 Sometimes Hofstede claims to have identified differences between national cultures and sometimes that he has identified those cultures. The focus of his analysis of the IBM questionnaire data is on 1 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
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 ways. It could be compared with alternative depictions of national cultures, especially with those which have emerged more recently (for example, Schwartz, 1992). His notion of culture and values could be contrasted with arguably richer conceptions of culture (for example, Geertz, 1973). His project could be dismissed as a misguided attempt to measure the unmeasurable (MacIntyre, 1971; Smelser, 1992). His findings could be judged solely on the basis of their predictive value by reviewing the many smaller-scale replications. The approach of this paper, however, is an evaluation of his research methodology. Are Hofstede's identification claims warranted; what is the quality of his evidence; what presuppositions does he rely on and are they justified? The paper proceeds as follows. First, it briefly outlines Hofstede's identification
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/09/2011 for the course MBA 205 taught by Professor Page during the Fall '11 term at University of the West of England.

Page1 / 45

mcsweeney national culture - 1 Published in Human...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online